Here we will post all original accusations and arguments people who hate onecoin wrote all over blogs and comments. We will deeply analyze, dissect and answer everything with objective arguments. People will be left to decide which arguments are more logical and true to them

I have read every work from "website" onecoinscam.info.
I must say that I do not understand what it takes for anyone to do such amount of effort into nothing. It took me several days to read all pages, I can not imagine what amount of time it took creators to gather all info and make some OPINIONS out of those data. I am sorry that I will need to show them how ignorant they were and how wasted their time was.

I can not help myself to wonder what is the motive behind this website cause it sells no ads. It does not promote a single person so it must be someone from group 4 working with someone from group 1.
Anyway, this topic will cover all their findings and show them where they are wrong.

Here is a content table so you can simply click on any topic, no need to do long scrolling down:

Ok so we see that someone made the whole diagram of every aspect of Onecoin and Onelife technology.
We can see left (green) side that represents complete flow diagram of onelife back office functions and on the right (red) side they made complete diagram of alleged "blockchain simulator"

A smart man would wonder, they seem to have access to company's source code right? Well, they do not have the access so all this is their opinion based on knowledge from open source decentralized community. I can download some source code of any open cryptocurrency out there, even bitcoin, make some adjustments, launch my own cryptocurrency, but in order to be credible and to make people mine my coin I need to put mu code to Github and list on coinmarketcap.com (which by the way is not the real stock exchange, it is just website owned my someone). Also, people will want to see my explorer that needs to show ALL transactions inside blockchain and also I need to be able to browse every single transaction that is recorded in my blockchain. Only by providing all that I can be credible PUBLIC decentralized cryptocurrency. And that is true and ok by me.

Thing is, Onecoin is NOT public nor decentralized cryptocurrency. It is a private company that is launching its private cryptocurrency shaped by its own regulations. No speculations are possible. The same as people demand ALL INFO (code on Github, explorer, list on coinmarketcap.com) for public networks in order to join mining and later, trading, in private cryptocurrencies, possible users must trust in company's vision. Since one of the main foundations of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology is to make an alternative to the banking system and remove trust we need in central entities (banks), decentralized cryptocurrency community does not recognize the possibility of private centralized cryptocurrency.
Someone who only learned the definition of cryptocurrency self-issued by bitcoin community would also agree that centralized cryptocurrencies are not possible. Until they learn problems that decentralized cryptocurrencies bring with them and how centralized systems actually solve all that. The only issue: trust in one entity is only needed in the early stage of creation where Onecoin is right now. Later they will anchor its blockchain to the public network making an ultimate trust that company will not alter any block.

Since Onecoin is in the early highly trust-sensitive state, many non-believers emerged with their own "proofs and opinions" that Onecoin is fake.

So how can I actually explain this "Blockchain Simulator" page and all text inside it.

I will quote some paragraphs from there and make my answer bellow it.

Note the “wall” between the Member accounts on the left and the Blockchain Simulator on the right. Whatever the transaction type you execute with OneCoins in the OneCoin and Coinsafe Account (Dealshaker purchase, Send OneCoins to Upline/Downline, “Mining”, Convert OFCs, all visible on the left side of the diagram) you will NEVER see a corresponding OneCoin Transaction on the Block and OneCoin Transaction screens (visible on the right side of the diagram).

Basically what they are trying to tell us is that there is onelife back office on one hand and there is "blockchain simulator" on the other side and they are not connected.

First of all, that is not blockchain simulator, that just a term invented by them as their opinion. I will call it back office blockchain viewer.
I must say that this is in no way fully working explorer and the company itself is stating that back office blockchain viewer DOES NOT show ALL the transactions inside blockchain and since Onecoin is private cryptocurrency they are not yet obligated to show all the transactions. That is actually true, because being centralized, people who want to join trust in the company anyway.

So where did those people come up with the idea that they can see ALL transactions in back office blockchain viewer?

So dr Ruja said that "you can see all the transactions inside blockchain if a user sends coin to another user etc".
By "you" those guys thought all members but what she meant is that THE COMPANY can see all of that, she did not refer to "blockchain" as blockchain in the back office.

This confusion led them to waste hours on trying to send coins from one wallet to another and waiting to see that transactions in blockchain viewer. Since they can not see them in any blocks in viewer they decided that there is no blockchain. I think they know that "no all transactions" theory is easily detected as not credible, they went even further trying to identify elements and way of work of decentralized networks inside blockchain toy that shows something. That thing alone does not add up, especially idea of comparing public network to private network does not add up cause public networks are vulnerable to attacks and hacks so many different elements are needed there (public keys, security algorhitms etc). That is not needed in private networks.

So if we know that is not a real explorer, that is just blockchain viewer that shows some info from the blockchain but not all transactions are shown and that is intentional. Why? The company knows and we trust them to carry all this anyway. But that is NO WAY proof that there is no blockchain.

We see there are 54 transactions in this block. With a total output of 32 945 709.08400710 ONE.

When we look at transactions below we see that new block first made a reward of 50000 mined OC and later we see some transactions that are around 700.000 OC and are divided into 2 smaller transactions, one really small and one bigger.

Researching public and private networks I came to the conclusion that private blockchain can have treasury accounts where smaller transactions are gathered for confirmations by nodes owned by the company and then released to recipients.
I think right now we can only see treasury account transactions, not small user2user input-outputs.
But I am sure company can see ALL smaller peer2peer transactions and that is also what auditor sees.

So, the conclusion is: they miss understood dr Ruja, they thought she meant that all transactions can be seen in blockchain in back office, they made many tests and failed to see their transactions and they concluded there is no blockchain. You don't come as open source community worker knocking on private closed companies doors and cry how their system is fake because they do not understand crumbs company shows in the front end.

Yet they failed to try to question is it even possible for such company to do such stupid error and how come a multi-billion company can not afford to have a blockchain when any geek can make a cheap fork of any public blockchain. They probably started with some fork of existing blockchains and now there is more effective and faster one that is currently enough for private purposes.

As we all know there is also the third generation of blockchain ready to hit public use and it will be able to anchor to public blockchains and store digital block stamps (merkle tree root) so users will be SURE that company will not manipulate any transactions in blocks so the only trust we will have to have in the company is not to turn off servers but hey, it will be public company with millions of users and who knows how many investors. We also trust paypal, google and facebook not to do the same too

Now I explained misconception of their claims and what I think is going on, I will quote and answer their key points:

Our investigators have executed and examined nine types of transactions with OneCoins, see menu option Tests with OneCoin Transactions for a description. Among others, they purchased products via Dealshaker, sent OneCoins to Upline/Downline IMAs, “Mined” OneCoins by submitting Tokens and converted OneCoins into OFCs. They NEVER saw a corresponding OneCoin Transaction on the BLOCK and TRANSACTION screens in the Crypto Currency section of the onelife.eu website.

As I already explaind above, your investigators were not informed that is not blockchain explorer and they were never supposed to see all transactions in blockchain viewer in back office.

Secondly, the vast majority of OneCoin transactions in the Blockchain Simulator Area are nonsensical anyway, for instance:
a. There are transactions with extremely small OneCoin amounts, much smaller than the corresponding value of 1 Token submitted for “mining”.
b. A number of “addresses” are involved in extremely many transactions.
c. A large number of Transactions with amounts with fractions don’t match with the applicable Difficulty Factor.
d. There are wild fluctuations in the total number of transactions per day which don’t match with events in the “real world”

This only proves that you do not have access to blockchain itself and code and that you do not seem to be able to understand what is shown based on experience from certain public networks so negation of onecoins system seems to be the only relevant result for you. it did not cross your mind that you simply do not understand something you do not have access to... Private network can have more treasury accounts that have permanent addresses and seems like we only see such cumulated transactions in back office, that is why you can not understand it, cause you do not have real access to it. A total number of transactions are subjected to a number of users sending coins, you can not know what exactly is going on every day.

Thirdly, if you inspect the transaction history in the OneCoin Account and Coinsafe Account there is not a single piece of evidence that these transactions are related to (i.e. recorded in) the Blockchain:
a. All accounts (OneCoin, Coinsafe, Tokens, Cash, Trading) are connected to the User Name/Account Name that members choose themselves when they create a OneLife account, before the first OneCoin transaction is recorded in the OneCoin Account.
b. OneLife members don’t own a Private Key.
c. OneLife members don’t see a Wallet ID.
d. In the OneCoin Account no Transaction IDs are visible which refer to the OneCoin Transactions in the Crypto Currency section.
e. In the OneCOin Account no Transaction Timestamps are visible, only Dates (however, in the past with the old version of the onelife.eu website, Timestamps were visible in the Transaction History of the OneCoin, Coinsafe, Tokens, Cash and Trading Accounts).
f. No Address of sender/receiver is visible in case of transfers of OneCoin from/to other members or Dealshaker purchases, only the User Name/Account Name of the other member or Merchant.

Well, this proves that you being public network experts do not understand benefits of private networks where we do not need most of the security obstacles that are indeed needed in the unregulated public network where it is easy to lose your coins. You seem to not understand that Onecoin is a centralized company, it is like mix of bitcoin exchange and bitcoin blockchain, web front account uses a separate database for account transactions so time in web database and blockchain can not be the same. They depend on time delay in performance of blockchain and time zone difference between nearest nodes and exchange web server. Onecoin indeed has blockchain in totally different time zone than web server for back office.

On the other hand we have found hard proof of the following events:
a. The first two transactions in the OneCoin Account of a OneLife account we used for experiments have Date/Timestamps which are 9.5 hours earlier than the launch of OneCoin Blockchain Simulator Version 2, i.e. these transactions were recorded long before the creation of the very first OneCoin Block. See screenshot in Tests with OneCoin Transactions.
b. “Mining” OneCoins by submitting Tokens was possible on 1 February 2017 at a point of time when the OneCoin Blockchain Simulator was down for maintenance.
The Date/Timestamps of the two consecutive Blocks before and after these mining transactions show a time gap of 26 hours, 23 minutes, so even if the Blockchain viewer shows only a part of the transactions (which in our opinion would be nonsensical anyway) this is a major inconsistency

You seem to think that all info from back office is synced with actual timestamps from blockchain? Do you really think back office front end is stored in blockchain? By that logic, times from bitcoin exchanges would need to match with times from blockchain? Well, now I am starting to think that you are either pretty ignorant or you just put up tech bullshit to try to scare nontech people from Onecoin.
Let me show you one transaction time on my bitcoin wallet from coinmate.io
As you can see times do not match in web account and blockchain, they are not linked, website account back office use a separate database, maybe mysql or whatever, and blockchain records only coin transactions. Meaning, blockchain is not account-centric, there is another database for that, blockchain is only coin-centric. Web database and blockchains might be on different time zone locations. That is probably the reason why they removed times from back office so you rats could not use it for your crap cause most people will not know that the same happens with bitcoin exchanges and transactions.
Also, if it is possible to submit tokens into mining while blockchain viewer is down, that only means that there is a blockchain running somewhere and that this blockchain viewer in back office is just a toy, a viewer for people that would like to see some things that are going on in the blockchain. By no means, you can see actual blockchain and if you can not see blockchain there that is no way proof that there is no blockchain.

In our opinion this all is irrefutable proof that the OneCoin “Blockchain” is a fake simulator and that OneCoin is not a cryptocurrency

On this we agree, this only is your personal OPINION based on ignorance, not being able to hear and understand what had been said, and you actually used a toy in back office to make a serious investigation that requires real explorer. Sorry, back office blockchain viewer is a toy and can not be used for any investigations. It can be only used for playing around, which is just what you did.

For an extensive investigation of the characteristics of the OneCoin Simulator we used an automated tool (Selenium IDE, a Firefox plugin) to browse through the Blockchain screens and save relevant Block and Transaction data.

REMARKS

You may try to download this 615 MB file at your own risk (WARNING: IT TAKES A LOT OF BANDWIDTH!!!) from: Dropbox – OneCoin Transactions Oct 2016 – May 2017
The file is too big to be viewed with Windows software like Word, Notepad, Excel, Notepad++
Depending on the specs of your computer, EditPad Lite 7 might be usable. Download link: Free Download for Personal Use

I am still trying to understand what kind of no lifer would sit and download 250.000+ pages of data from back office web toy...

Explanation of Transaction data format
After the line with the Block data follows one line for each Transaction in the Block, starting with “TXID: “.
The second item on each Transaction line is the TransactionID, which can be used in a hyperlink to see the Transaction data screen. If you put the TransactionID behind:

Remark: this format does not show the difference between Inputs and Outputs, so if a Transaction contains three or more Inputs/Outputs, the meaning of the data can be ambiguous. In some cases the meaning can be derived by comparing Amounts, in other cases the Transaction must be checked on the TRANSACTION screen.

More proofs that you do not understand how this actually works. You do not understand if they are treasury account transactions and public networks do not have such thing. You seem to impose your personal opinion what COULD be just because you have no understanding how it actually works. This would be the same as trying to guess how banks IT system works. And you give yourself credit just because you ASSUME that onecoin works or it was supposed to work like other decentralized networks. Ignorance is bliss.

We imported the Block data into an Excel spreadsheet to gather statistical data, for instance calculations of the daily number of OneCoin Transactions.
In a different worksheet we made a summary of the daily totals.
Based on these daily summary data we made a graph, which shows the total number of OneCoin Transactions on each day in the period 1 October 2016 up to and including 31 May 2017. Each vertical bar in the graph below represents one day.
Note the nonsensical wild fluctuations in these daily totals which have no relationship whatsoever with real life events in the OneCoin/Onelife ecosystem:

I am amazed by ignorance... Ok so here you imported outputs of blocks and made a graph that shows number of onecoins in circulation every day and you think that makes no sense that some days there is like tens thousands of coins in circulation and some days there are millions? Why does that make no sense? Sometimes people send fewer coins to other usernames, sometimes more.
This ignorance of yours seems to be produced from bitcoin experience where circulation is more stable but you do not understand why. Bitcoin price is artificially inflated because each day there are hundreds of transactions of flowing altcoins into bitcoin where bitcoin value goes up or flowing bitcoin into some ICOs where bitcoin price drops. There is no speculation in onecoin, it is closed and private and people sometimes send less, sometimes more. Period.

Characteristics of Blocks
Each Block contains one, and only one, so-called “coinbase transaction”. This is a Transaction with no INPUTS and only one OUTPUT of 50,000 newly “mined” OneCoins which is the reward for the “miners” (this OneCoin mining process is completely fake though).
Note: the only exception to this rule is the “genesis” Block with Height (= sequence number) #0. The Output Amount of this Block is 1,986,580,000 ONE.
A Block can contain 0, 1 or more “OneCoin Transactions” which use Unspent Transaction Outputs of earlier Blocks as Transaction Inputs and create new Unspent Transaction Outputs.
A Block can contain 0, 1 or more “KYC Transactions”.
Blocks are created at intervals of one minute at an average, with deviations of only a few seconds.
All Blocks make up a continuous chain (hence the term “Blockchain”), connected by previous block and next block(s) hyperlinks.
It is possible that some cryptographic techniques are used in the OneCoin Blockchain Simulator, for instance for the calculation of the Transaction Hash, and for the calculation of the “Merkle Root”, which in real cryptocurrencies is a Hash of the Hash of all Transactions in the Block.
Note: the usage of cryptographic techniques would not really be relevant because all Blocks and Transactions are fake anyway, but we’re still curious about this.

This is your description of what you can see on blockchain viewer toy in back office. Most points are correct observing and thus admitting seeing elements of cryptocurrency but you crapped on it at the and by ASSUMING that some cryptographic techniques is used. Come on, are you being professional?
First you describe that on blockchain viewer you see all the elements of cryptography then you say that some form of cryptography technic is used and at the end you say even if any crypto technic is used it does not matter because you think it if all fake?
Who the hell will take you for serious? Well, probably ignorant people that do not understand what you write and of course those who agree with you. So again, one more personal OPINION.

No “double spends”
Transaction OUTPUTs can be used as Transaction INPUTs in later Transactions only once; so-called “double spends” are strictly prohibited in any cryptocurrency. To check this, a table or list of Unspent Transaction Output / UTXO must be maintained. As soon as an UTXO is used as Transaction Input in a later OneCoin Transaction the UTXO is deleted from this table.

Remarks:
Because combinations of Address and OneCoin Amount are not unique, i.e. the same combinations can occur multiple times in different Transactions, some extra Identification is necessary for the TRANSACTION and UTXO tables in the Blockchain Simulator database to have a unique “key” for each UTXO. This Identification is not visible on screens.
Although all OneCoin Transactions in the Blockchain Simulator section are fake, it is worth noticing that during our investigations we have never detected a double spend.

While double spend is prohibited in cryptocurrencies some hackers did make a way to double-spend bitcoins intentionally and also it can happen unintentionally. Here is list for bitcoin: https://blockchain.info/double-spends but since it is only 10 min cache, sometimes there is 0 so here is a screenshot as a proof of double spends in bitcoin:

So what is a problem if onecoin does not have double spends? Public networks have better regulation and security so you can not manipulate your public key to make intentional double spend. Bitcoin must go through segwit in order to solve that issue but Onecoin made it impossible from the start. You do not need to enter wallet ID or use keys because usernames are unique and you can not double send or spend the same coins and also this way of payment makes it much easier for users to remember their usernames than keys and addresses. Centralized system security makes it possible. You would not know that being decentralized dinosaur.

Characteristics of OneCoin Addresses
A OneCoin Address, or in short Address, is an identifier of 34 alphanumerical characters, always beginning with the number 9, that represents a destination for a OneCoin Transaction or “payment” in the Blockchain Simulator.

Interesting finding: we checked about50 randomly selected OneCoin Addresses on http://lenschulwitz.com/base58 and we found that they all pass the so-called Base59Test. This a validator of Bitcoin addresses, it looks like the OneCoin Addresses also use Base58 Encoding. The screenshot below shows the validation of the Output Address of the Transaction in genesis Block #0: 9UHVMKSB8xdgzjY5X82gC5An4NiupfiUE5

Note: For OneCoin Addresses the validator gives a warning “Address type: ‘Abnormal’ ” because this website is made to check Bitcoin Addresses which always start with a 1 or a 3, while OneCoin Adressess always start with a 9.

God knows your point here. You used bitcoin (open system that you have access to) address checker to try check onecoin addresses that are part of central system that you do not have access to...

Diagram of OneCoin Transaction types
This diagram contains a summary of the data of four Blocks and seven Transactions which exist in the OneCoin Blockchain Simulator. By means of these data we explain some concepts and terms

Since you do not have full access to blockchain, you do not understand what kind of transactions are shown in back office so you can not say anything about transaction types, let alone spend addresses...

Explanation of the diagram
a. BLOCK #0: the Transaction of this Block sends 1,986,580,000 ONE, which according to Ruja Ignatova were “mined” during the OneLife MasterMind Event in Bangkok on 1 October 2016, to Output Address (starting with) 9UHVMK.
b. In the second Transaction of BLOCK #16041 this Unspent Transaction OUTPUT / UTXO of 1,986,580,000 ONE with Address 9UHVMK is used as INPUT (see first blue arrow). The Transaction with Transaction ID / TXID 43d938 creates two new OUTPUTs/UTXO:
1,000,000 ONE is sent to Output Address 9ZTji2.
1,985,580,000 ONE is sent to Output Address 9gZYr1.
Now the genesis Transaction OUTPUT of 1,986,580,000 ONE at Address 9UHVMK is fully spent and may NOT be used as INPUT again in later Transactions, so it is deleted from the UTXO table. If it would still be used again, this would be an illegal “double spend” which would make the Blockchain corrupt.
Note: we have checked hundreds of Transaction OUTPUTs and INPUTs and we have never found a double spend.
c. Three Transactions of BLOCK #20519 use three Unspent Transaction OUTPUTs of earlier Transactions (see the three blue arrows) and they each create two new Unspent Transaction OUTPUTs / UTXO.

I am trying to understand what do you impose here, I did not see anything double spent here and I searched full addresses not just 6 characters. You seem to refer to some treasury account address being used few times in different blocks (first time in genesis block).
Since you do not have access to blockchain itself you can not understand reasons for that. I think those are treasury account addresses that are permanent.
But, ny opinion is that even if there were some "illegal" double-spends that would maybe be a reason why they are buying third generation blockchain from dxmarkets. Maybe some unintentional double-spends in private network are perfectly normal since they also happen in bitcoin public network, at least onecoin would only have unintentional double spends.
Time to expose double standards from you guys. You seem to yell at incidents from Onecoin blockchain that also happen to bitcoin. The same goes for value overflow incident that also happened to bitcoin. You count to scare ignorant people that have nothing to do with cryptocurrency.

KYC Transactions
This unique feature to store KYC documents in the Blockchain was announced on 11 June 2016 during the CoinRush Event. The news was repeated when the new Blockchain was launched on 1 October 2016, but only on 27 February 2017 the first “KYC Transaction” was visible in Block #207038.
Apart from the Transaction Id no (encrypted) data are visible. Only a Simple Simon will believe that it is useful to store some encrypted version of a drivers license or passport in a Blockchain. It goes without saying that this feature is complete nonsense however.

I can not say for sure what does mean when we see KYC transaction, probably that means when someone gets KYC approved and it gets recorded into blockchain. Why did first kyc transaction appear in February who knows, that does not mean anything. They do not show all transactions anyway.
As for data showed in transactions, do you really think you will ever be able to see any data inside kyc transactions? Let's make onecoin blockchain public ledger of IDs and addresses for millions of people. The company can see those data, not users.

Ok so I went through all points and remarks.

My conclusion is that I was not obligated to make this long post anyway because you made false start to begin with.

You misunderstood that you can see all transactions in back office blockchain viewer. Thus you debunked yourself because that toy is not to be used as any valid blockchain probing. I only pointed that here thoroughly so people will decide.

Also, you are using knowledge and experience from public open source networks that can not be used in checking private networks because systems are totally different since private networks do not need most of the heavy security algorithms.

Sorry, you can not be unix guy and go and test unix stuff in macox terminal cause most of them won't work cause The company made it different for good reasons.

The most important Transaction to verify this hypothesis is the Transaction of genesis Block – Block height #0 (login required) which has 1,986,580,000 ONE Transaction OUTPUT Amount.

The 1,986,580,000 ONE Output Amount is sent to Output Address 9UHVMKSB8xdgzjY5X82gC5An4NiupfiUE5, a so-called “Unspent Transaction (TX) Output” or “UTXO”.

So basically they say that in the picture below is genesis block #0 and there is UTXO address 9UHVMKSB8xdgzjY5X82gC5An4NiupfiUE that can not be spent anymore or it would be illegal double spend.

Then they state that address 9UHVMKSB8xdgzjY5X82gC5An4NiupfiUE was found as Input on block #16041:

So, address 9UHVMKSB8xdgzjY5X82gC5An4NiupfiUE5 was utxo in block #0 and it was then input in block #16041 ?
What is wrong with UTXO being used as INput ??? Definition of UTXO
Heavens...

Ok they were mistaken about how this is double spent but let's take a look about their quote from onecoin.eu website

“OneCoin’s blockchain consists of each transaction ever performed in OneCoin.”
“The blockchain is based on protocols that authenticate, validate and store information inconsistent, unbroken sequences that make the system safer by eliminating any attempts of fraud, duplicity and forgery.“

Company meant with this that it will not be possible for Onecoin users to make double spends and we know that is possible in Bitcoin.
You are even quoting company's central address that can be used 2 times if it is needed to properly deliver doubled coins to its users but it wasn't. UTXO can be used as Input later. Why was it used after 11 days we don't know. Company knows. You either believe them or not.

FINDING: If the 1,986,580,000 ONE Output Amount of genesis Block #0 would have been distributed to 2.5 million individual e-wallets of OneLife members on 1 October 2016 already, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO SEND THE SAME TRANSACTION OUTPUTS TO OTHER OUTPUT ADDRESSES 11 DAYS LATER, THIS WOULD BE A STRICTLY ILLEGAL “DOUBLE SPEND” (yes, this is very important).

It would be irrefutable proof of fraud, duplicity and forgery, which according to the information on onecoin.eu/en/blockchain is impossible in the OneCoin Blockchain.

You are so wrong here. Address 9UHVMKSB8xdgzjY5X82gC5An4NiupfiUE5 was output in block#0 but it was input in block#16041 and UTXO can be used as input later.
Sorry. No double spend thus your claim are false and are only your opinion.

Also, you are insoncictent to your writings. On this other post you stated that you found no double spends:

Our opinion – Part 1
Sub 1): Our own investigations reveal that the OneCoin “Blockchain” is internally consistent, by which we mean:

- There is a continuous chain of Blocks, connected by “next” and “previous” hyperlinks, which can be browsed through from the very first “genesis block” with Block height #0 until the most recently created Block.
- Each block contains 1 and only 1 transaction with 50,000 newly “mined” OneCoins (the mining process is fake though).
- All input amounts of Transactions can be traced back to an output amount of (an) earlier transaction(s). The original source of all OneCoins, if you follow the trail to earlier Transactions, always is a 50000 ONE mining transaction or the genesis block.- We never found output amounts which are used more than once as input amounts in later Transactions. In general cryptocurrency terms: there are no “double spends”[/u].

Please make up your mind.

Let's go on for timestamp and back office time inconsistency that you seem to parrot around in more posts and don't worry , I will go over all of them:

Screenshot of first two OneCoin transactions in OneCoin Account on 1 October 2016
This is the old screen layout which shows Dates and Timestamps, the new layout which was implemented on 5 December 2016 only shows Dates. Note the Date/Timestamps 01/10/2016 00:00:01 and 00:00:02 GMT/UTC.
This is hard proof that these transactions were registered in the OneCoin Account 9.5 hours before Ruja Ignatova presented the new Blockchain Simulator during the OneLife MasterMind Event in Bangkok. This OneCoin Account, including its Transactions, is unrelated to the Blockchain Simulator.

So once again, since this was already discussed in previous post, you seem to think that back office needs to have the same times as blockchain timestamps? That is only a proof that tech guy did not write this post of yours.

First of all, back office data is saved in separate data base, might be SQL, the same like other Bitcoin Exchanges use their own databases to store transactions and balances. They sync them with blockchain though and times from their own databases and timestamps in blockchain is not the same. Here is proof of that:
Let me show you one transaction time on my bitcoin wallet from coinmate.io
As you can see times do not match in web account and blockchain, they are not linked, website account back office use a separate database, maybe mysql or whatever, and blockchain records only coin transactions. Meaning, blockchain is not account-centric, there is another database for that, blockchain is only coin-centric. Web database and blockchains might be on different time zone locations. That is probably the reason why they removed times from back office so you rats could not use it for your crap cause most people will not know that the same happens with bitcoin exchanges and transactions.

Remark: those who want to accuse us of falsifying the Date/Timestamps in the screenshot above, first check these YouTube videos uploaded by OneLife members: YouTube link 1 – YouTube video 2 (same video, poor quality).

I don't think you are forging anything. I am sure you believe in what you are saying. Thing is your opinion is so wrong and based on missunderstanding the system that you don't have access to.

FINAL CONCLUSION
Because of:

the internal consistency of the data in OneCoin Blockchain Simulator, which are visible on the BLOCKCHAIN and TRANSACTION screens, and which do not show any “double spends” of Transaction OUTPUTs
and

the proof of the Date/Timestamps of the “New blockchain coins migration” and “Doubled coins following blockchain migration” Transactions in the OneLife member OneCoin Accounts which were recorded 9.5 hours before the launch of the new Blockchain
we reject the hypothesis that on 1 October 2016 2.5 Transactions, which are invisible on the BLOCKCHAIN screens, have been recorded in the Blockchain.
This is irrefutable proof that the OneCoin Blockchain including the genesis Block is completely fake.

Also, time inconsistency between back office and blockchain timestamps are a normal thing because back office uses a separate database, not blockchain, only coins are centered in blockchains. Back office needs to sync with them.
In fact, I have no proof, but I state that I saw my doubled coins way after Bangkok event so that 00:00 time from your screenshot is false or a mistake. Probably it was removed because it only brings in confusion and complications.

Some other interesting findings, based on the downloaded Block and Transaction data:
In our 615MB file with downloaded Block and Transaction data we found 104,973 occurrences of Address 9ZTji2SeQcs7NPwGEgsARm3W355sjBuHzr within the first 336,968 Blocks. In other words, this address is used 104,973 times as Input Address or Output Address.

This is an undefined statement. You did not make a single screenshot of at least several such blocks. But I believe you.
I did not want to waste too much time so I went only several "next" blocks from block#16041 where address 9ZTji2SeQcs7NPwGEgsARm3W355sjBuHzr was shown to be recipient of 1 million coins.
In that block, we do not understand what exactly that address represents, until we click the next block#16042 and see that address actually "collects" mined coins from various blocks and addresses:
We can only assume what is going on here. Seems like address 9ZTji2SeQcs7NPwGEgsARm3W355sjBuHzr is indeed some permanent treasury account that receives 1 million mined coins and then transferred it to users who submitted tokens or whatever. Maybe there are more such addresses. I found that this address receives 1 million coins in several next blocks (16067, 16068, 16069, 16070 and so on I did not want to go further). This is surely not double spend, this is only proof that centralized blockchain is different from decentralized and you guys are not familiar with how private networks work and how they can deal with things

The 1,985,580,000 ONE Unspent Transaction OUTPUT sent to Address 9gZYr1K99chvfLRpuS33hsZLHVjqimYtdy is used as Transaction INPUT in one of the 66 Transactions in Block #20519 (see screenshot below). In Block #20640 the 1,985,579,527.77777767 at Address 9bra5qH8C1nPChQX7HjMxibd3kgH6YMVHs is used as Input in another Transaction, which creates two new Unspent Transaction OUTPUTs. And so on and so forth.

Seems like here you explained definition of UTXO.
An Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) that can be spent as an input in a new transaction. But you seem to think that is wrong.

While you tried here to falsely and with proved misunderstanding of Onecoin blockchain operations (which is normal cause you don't have access to it cause it is PRIVATE) you fail to address that Bitcoin blockchain indeed has "double spends" from time to time.
In blockchain.info there is a 10 minute cache that shows current double spends.
Here is screenshot I made where there were double spends:

A.1: Hyped predictions about the OneCoin price or value
The most important Ponzi element in this network is that new members are lured in with continuous predictions about the development of the “value” or “price” of OneCoin and comparisons with the Bitcoin price.

The graph shows a prediction of the OneCoin price of 50 to 100 EUR in 2018
Note the hypocritical DISCLAIMER underneath the graph:

“DISCLAIMER: The price chart presented above is based solely on prediction – wheter these values will be reached depends on commitment and effort by company members
This forecast is based on the variables that determined Bitcoin’s value”

Ok so here you state how Onecoin supporters are predicting its value, they made a graph and you yourself pointed there is a DISCLAMER, explaining that that is just a prediction and that value will actually depend on the effort from members.

My question: Why is this wrong? Is it illegal? Any ICO out there has its project and goals and have their predictions. Those are PREDICTIONS, not promises. Onelife members that make promises of those are wrong. They need to learn, if not, they will be kicked out.

We can find many predictions from many credible people about how Bitcoin value will boom. Those can be also viewed as manipulation to lure small people to buy bitcoins. BUT THEY EVEN HAVE NO DISCLAIMER:

A.2: Promotion of overpriced “educational packages”
In July 2016 the “Ultimate Package” was introduced. It costs 118,000 EUR and contains the same 7 Levels of education as the Infinity package, which costs 27,500 EUR. You can find the table of contents for each educational package on the oneacademy.eu website after clicking the START NOW button of each module.

You haters are very well known to only show and twist information that suits your agenda.
This was limited package and it was not even available for Europe. It was demanded by Asia users who wanted to have more onecoins since education was the only way to get onecoins. If they want to pay it, it is worth it. If you think it is overpriced, you will probably skip it.
Just like if you want to buy some NewCoin on its ICO you will pay for whatever you need for BTC or ETH in order to get as many NewCoins as you want. Also, most ICOs offer 20% bonus for the ones who enter ICO in earlier days and lower it to 0% in segments. So some people from the start of ICO got more NewCoins for the same money than some people from the end of ICO. Double standards guys.

Edit to this response thanks to CryptoXpose:
This package was introduced in July 2016 as a limited offer for Asia people. Although EU people could see those packages, they could not purchase them legally. This package was also reintroduced in February 2017 as a limited offer due to demand too.
Here is a screenshot of today's back office shop showing no Ultimate package cause it was a limited offer demanded by IMA leaders.

A.3: Contradictions between OneLife Terms & Conditions and other documents
The OneLife Terms & Conditions (see §2, Version 24 April 2017) state this:

“The promotional tokens generated give access to the mining pools but not guarantee that and how many coins will be received”.
On the other hand the descriptions of Educational packages in the onelife.eu Gift shop (login required) contain texts like these:

“The Supreme Package will also guarantee priority trading rights in the internal practice trading platform.”
“… the Infinity package takes the trading and mining experience a step further …”
“Tycoon + traders are provided with 81 818 FREE tokens which are directly set to auto-mining feature and optimize the trading experience.“
This package is for those who want to bring their trading skills to the top level and seriously profit from mining and trading OneCoins.

“This will allow all OneLife Members to buy, sell and exchange OneCoins in a faster and greatly enhanced system. “
On 16 January 2017, so only two months later and without any prior warning, this exchange was closed for at least a year to prepare for the IPO / Initial Public Offering, planned in 2018 Q2. In flat contradiction with the product description, this means that selling OneCoins on the exchange is not possible anymore.

NB: when the exchange was open, less than 10% of the sell orders were successful, because the supply was much bigger than the demand.

Every company makes ToS to protect itself from events that are out of their control. So when we look into this matter ToS has a priority than any advertised promotion. ToS is needed to remove any responsibility of the company in case of some tech problems and tokens can not be delivered in time. At the same time, with all the promotions, the company WANTS to grant you all free promotional material.
Also, until now, no one failed to receive his tokens so ToS turns out to be pure "just in case" protection.
Not sure if you guys ever read any of ToS from some huge global companies. They are full of such "responsibility protections".
Ok, some skeptics can twist it and say "oh the company is making it's get-a-way back door when they collapse scam". Such skeptics will, of course, pass this opportunity.

xcoinx was NEVER promoted as a permanent way that people will be able to sell onecoins. It was opened to test this platform for public use and is was closed when it was tested enough. YOu could see that OC value fluctuated a little bit back then, this was because of supply and demand. With limits on sale amount and limited transaction life they actually managed to keep a stable value of OC with so huge supply and low demand cause, 3 million people tried to sell coins to few thousands of IMAs who bothered to log in and buy OC. Most of them just left trading account to auto buy tokens. Imagine what will happen when few millions of users want to sell OC to the whole world.
Of course, speculators will not like this and they will say it has no economic logic but to be honest, I agree with this method if we want stable value, not volatile. But I can not say what will happen with those limits when xcoinx starts public trading. I personally hope limits will stil exist.
Hell, let's find 1000 people that will want to sell 1Million BTC at the same exchange. Not gonna happen

A.4: Announcement of IPO / Initial Public Offering
In bold we hightlight the most striking quotes, followed by our comments.

“OneCoin is going public in the second quarter of 2018, and we want the coin to be open to everyone willing to buy and sell OneCoins.”

OneLife members are kept in the air for 15 months. In the meantime selling of OneCoin is not possible anymore.

What is wrong with this other than, apparently, you misunderstanding? It is a fact that currently onecoin can not be sold. If you reffer to former internal platforms, I need to remind you that they were never promoted as permanent way you can sell coins. In the start it was just for practice, later to test xcoinx for public use. And they want to push onecoin public so anyone can buy and sell onecoin. I don't see anything wrong with it.

“Our goal is to become the first fintech, cryptocurrency and e-commerce company to be listed on a stock exchange.”

Compare this with Par. 2 of the Terms and Conditions and the contradiction is obvious:

“(1) The Company is a software and technology corporation that sells high-quality products and services such as training and continuing education courses, cloud services, other digital and material goods and services (hereinafter referred to as “Goods”) on the international markets.”

Ok so you contradict their current state and their goal? How is it wrong for anything to contradict present state and future goal?
Wouldn't it be strange if their goal matched current closed state? It is actually good that they want to develop project to the end.

“The only way to be part of the IPO is to hold OneCoins.”
For regular OneLife members the only way to get OneCoins is by buying educational packages and submitting the “promotional tokens”.

“You will be able to exchange these OneCoins over the next months for so-called OFCs.”
We tried to determine what OFCs really are, but we did not succeed. This all looks like smoke and mirrors.

Again, we can only respect companies decisions, at least people who are already involved. For new people, it will be their own choice.
They can buy education, get some onecoins with it, and then exchange some or all onecoins to OFCs to be a part of IPO of the company that has several millions of users. Of course, company distanced itself from OFC "value" with ToS. Why do you keep baching ToS, it is needed.
We all know this is very risky project and it might not succeed. The company is protecting itself in case of angry people who understood they were promised anything. It is good, but skeptics will, of course, be scared away. That is all totally ok.
Since you do not understand what OFC actually represent let me try to explain my vision of them:
Those are future certificates that will be a proof that you need to own some stocks once the company is listed on the stock exchange.
In order to list on a stock exchange, the company needs to find a bank and regulatory body to list them. That is long and paper consuming process. Once bank determines number of stocks and value, we will know the value of our OFC cause only then we will know how any stocks we will receive for x amount of OFC.We will know more about it next year. In the meantime, you are entitled not to understand what this is.

A.5: Attempt to bypass Consumer Protection Laws
In many countries consumers, contrary to businesses, are protected by strict laws.

While many of the IMAs (Independent Marketing Associates) are private persons without a business/company, the OneLife Terms and Conditions and OneLife IMA Agreement explicitly try to bypass the Consumer Protection Laws for all IMAs.

OneLife Terms and Conditions
§3 General prerequisites
(1) Services may only be provided to legal entities, partnerships or individuals provided that they or their managers are entrepreneurs and are at least 18 years of age and are not present or former company’s employees or their respective spouse/lineal ascendants or descendants/affinity and collateral relatives up to forth degree. No Services may be provided to consumers.
§4 The status of IMAs as entrepreneurs
(1) In this business relationship, the IMAs are acting as independent, autonomous entrepreneurs.
§5 Notice concerning the voluntary right of revocation
IMAs are registering in ONELIFE NETWORK as an entrepreneurs and not as a clients and therefore do not have the statutory right to revoke the IMA Agreement.

Basically, here states that the company will provide a service only to certain people who will be recognized as registered businesses or individual entrepreneurs that are solely responsible for paying their taxes to their company. The company will not work with end users (consumers).
IMAs will work with them and it is their responsibility to take care of their paperwork. It is normal MLM company routine. No MLM company sells products directly to consumers. You need to buy a product from IMA, or become an IMA in order to buy products directly from the company.
That has nothing to do with avoiding local consumer law cause IMAs obey to those laws as well as tax obligations.

OneLife IMA Agreement
14. PRODUCT ORDER/SALES & RETURNS
IMAs are registering with the ONELIFE NETWORK as an entrepreneur and not as a consumer and therefore do not have the statutory right to revoke this agreement. Nevertheless, the Company is voluntarily granting you a right to rescind this agreement within two weeks.

Ok, so here they say, since entrepreneurs can not avoid this agreement as consumers would, they still allow you to cancel it after 14 days.
Strange how you can twist generous stuff into bad ones

A.6: Attempt to bypass Financial Regulations
Many countries have strict laws and regulations concerning the promotion and sale of financial products. The OneLife company tries to bypass those laws by asserting this in the Terms and Conditions:

“For the packages Infinity, Premium Trader, Tycoon Trader, Executive Trader, Pro-Trader, Trader and Starter the content is educational material.”
At the same time:

1) The Onelife company uses the OneCoin symbol in the centre of a picture of the “OneLife ecosystem”.
2) The OneLife company presentation promotes this (fake) OneCoin cryptocurrency with the goal to become the Number 1 cryptocurrency in the world.
3) In the new Dealshaker webshop at least 50% of the deal price must be paid in OneCoins.
4) One of the highest ranked company representatives, “Master Distributor” Sebastian Greenwood, states at an event “Coin millionaires is what we create. […] Network commission is not the purpose of this company”.
5)The “About” section of the onelife.eu website states: “VISION: Our vision is to provide alternative payment solutions and equal access to financial education to people worldwide. OneLife Network makes financial transactions and trade safer, easier, and available to everyone on the web“

Oh but those education packages ARE educational material and buyers are paying only for them, not the onecoin. But some countries (like Germany and Austria) are still recognizing it as a financial instrument so the company needs to obtain a license. That is good they will obtain it and be ready for public trading. This might delay IPO though.

1. Who says the company can not use Onecoin logo as it is actually making a private cryptocurrency bigger and closer to being public.
It is similar to other ICOs, where they use their logo, their vision, they promote their project and they make their predictions. But at the same time no one pays for anything under that logo, they PAY for BTC or ETH and in exchange to them they get ICO coin. Double standards guys.
2) Indeed, it is promoted as a goal. It is the goal if you missed it.
3) Sure, Dealshaker is advertising platform and merchants who want to use it need to accept 50% in OC. Since merchants are constantly coming in, they like it. Maybe this will attract government to ask Onecoin to obtain a license. That it not a bad thing. At least they can, who can obtain license for Bitcoin
4) Yes that is true, they make onecoin millionaires. It means they have million+ of Onecoins. Not euro or usd.
5) What is wrong with that vision, it is a goal the company is going to and dealing with obligatory issues along the way. You do know cryptocurrency is not yet regulated. At least Onecoin is making it possible to regulate

A.7: OneLife Network / OneCoin dedicated to provide access to financial services
The OneLife Press Room contains this Question and Answer which explicitly claims the purpose to provide access to financial services:
“The OneLife Network is a growing global network that was born out of the OneCoin cryptocurrency brand.”
“When mining OneCoins, users become part of a global network of millions of OneCoin miners, called the OneLife Network. “
“Since its establishment in 2014, OneCoin has been dedicated to creating a coin suitable for mass-market usage that is in line with its vision to provide access to financial services for everyone. “

Yes, the company is working to make a cryptocurrency that will provide mass-market usage (thing what other CC can not do). That is a vision, no primises or guaranties so not a part of ponzi. If you disagree with the vision you will pass.

B. Quotes, Presentation Slides and Screenshots which prove the hyping of the OneCoin cryptocurrency, instead of the sale of educational packages

Dr. Ruja Ignatova, November 2014, Kuching. Malaysia (YouTube link)
“So if you ask me what is the smartest thing to do. Of course everybody has his own way and his own strategy and how he makes money. But what I would do is, I would buy a package, get as many tokens I can, split and then buy the coin, because the numbers and the money that you will make, of course you will make money from the bonuses and I’m sure this is exciting and good, but the real profit will come from the coin. Just think about the guy with the $27. I don’t promise you for 27 dollars 800,000 euro, because this is not something that I do, but I see this perfectly reasonable that our coin is next year, one year after mining, somewhere between 2,50 euro or 5 euro.”

First of all, I don't understand why you guys think it is bad or illegal to sell education packs and give coins for free. I mean you agree to pay for education meaning you agree with its value. And if you want to buy several of the same education packs just because you want onecoin that is fine. your decision. And this paragraph looks like an answer to someone who asked about what strategy for education packs would she use.
She also compares it with Bitcoin success, why not, why could not Onecoin also succeed. She does not promise that though as that would be bad:
" I don’t promise you for 27 dollars 800,000 euro, because this is not something that I do"
She has right to have an opinion or prediction where OC will go. If you disagree with her, you will pass. It would be strange is a founder of a project would be skeptical of her project success

Sebastian Greenwood, November 2014, Kuching. Malaysia (YouTube link) - link broken
“The Tycoon package is the 5,000 euro package. This is the most sexy package. This is the one where we actually really can profit.
Now it does not mean you cannot start this business on a small package, yes you can. You can always enter the barrier to enter into the cryptocurrency market low, because of OneCoin, this opportunity. However the Tycoon package, I like this calculation very much, it comes with these so-called free tokens and these tokens are in the package as a standard 60,000 tokens, okay. So 60,000 tokens is what we get.
Now what we can do with these tokens are a few things. We can trade these tokens, recover some of the costs for the package, we can do that. We can keep the tokens, let them split or double. But that’s what happens in the internal exchange, once the price is going up, there will be a split or double, so we get double the amount of the tokens in the package. That means that between eight to twelve weeks we should expect a split of the token. Now if I put 5,000 of my hard worked money and bought a Tycoon package, after eight to twelve weeks that’s double in value because of the split.”

This is a statement from 2014. Back then there was internal platform where people could practice trading with 40% of their money earned through the commission. So if you buy tycoon, you choose what will you do with those 60000 tokens. Maybe you want to sell some of them on internal exchange to recover some cost, or you can wait for them to split and receive more numbers of coin. Why is this bad? He is explaining possibilities of what you can do with your tokens that you get for free with education. You don't like your possibilities of token use? You will pass.
It is normal to explain and promote private cryptocurrency part of this opportunity.

Sebastian Greenwood, November 2014, Kuching. Malaysia (YouTube link)

“So obviously after some time I realized I should have as many Tycoon packages as possible. Not because it’s like expensive to invest it, but because it makes me a huge return, that’s the whole thing.

Now one Tycoon package coming all the way through the coin through the mining process, it’s not a tedious proces, it’s a very simple process, it’s a step-by-step approach. However in a basic mathematical calculation 60,000 tokens becomes 240,000 tokens. We start mining the coin for five tokens per coin. Now if we make sure that we mine all those tokens, or those coins through the tokens, we will come out with minimum 48,000 OneCoins. That’s quite nice, 48,000 OneCoins.

Now can you imagine if we are 500,000 people globally, because that’s my ambition, I want to build a mining network of half a million people worldwide who can touch this coin to make some profit.
Can you imagine how quick the price of this coin can go, up because of the amount of people that we are.

Again very old text from 2014. Things are very different now Just read what was their goal, to have 500k miners? We are sitting at 3.2mio now. They changed story a bit cause they see people are more interested than they anticipated.

Sebastian Greenwood, Kari Wahlroos, 11 June 2016, Coin Rush Event, London (YouTube link)
Sebastian Greenwood: But the most interesting thing is not the network commissions, because we can join any company and try and do our best.
What’s interesting is, how many coin millionaires can we create. Okay, that means the value of the coin multiplied by how many coins you have

This is becoming boring. It is clear that everyone joins this opportunity because they believe in Onecoins and that is important to everyone. You seem to mix up two things "we only sell education" and "we are creating mass market cryptocurrency". It is true that the only product that is being SOLD is education, but it is also true that it grants you exclusive access to Onecoin cryptocurrency. Why do you think they could not just make standard ICO accepting only BTC or ETH, I mean they can cash them out too right? But it is better to educate people about cryptocurrency and then make them access to it. If you want to join because Onecoin is important for you to have, then you will buy education. In opposite, you will pass.
The same with any ICO, if you like a project, the vision, you ask "what do I have to do/buy to participate ICO. The same here. It is education in this case that grants you Onecoin access.

Dr. Ruja Ignatova, 11 June 2016, London (YouTube link)
“This network was created to become and to fuel the growth of OneCoin, which I strongly believe will be the number one cryptocurrency worldwide.”

True, network is created to direct sell education and this way promote Onecoin. Nothing new or strange.

“Second package we’re launching, most probably most interesting for the Asian markets, and we have been asked for it, it is a big package called the Ultimate Package. This package is 118,000 euro and it has 1,311,111 tokens. So what is special about this package, except being so big? Of course it’s amazing that it has a lot of tokens and a lot of coins will come out, but it is actually the same features as the Infinity Plus package. So you can use it in the Super Combo as an Infinity Plus package. The coins will get interest in the Coinsafe, but what we will do for this package, and only for this package, we will give all the seven splits when the new blockchain is switched on. So it means you’ll get all the seven splits immediately and this package will generate over two million OneCoins … TWO million OneCoins. This most probably is the best package for anyone who wants to maximize the OneCoins, who wants to get a good mining difficulty now and actually work on a strategy to have and collect as many coins as possible.

This has nothing to do with the sale of educational packages, it is patently obvious that this is investment advice.

I wrote above about this package and here you proved me right. She said it her self: "we have been asked for it"
Onelife IMAs asked for that package. Seems like bigger people from China were interested into obtaining even more Onecoins with one package so they were granted their wish.
Again you twist generosity into a bad thing. Also your words "this was investment advice" are not true, this shows how shallow you are in understanding words that people speak. But that is because your mind is so closed and biased that you see every sentence with your mind set.

Dr. Ruja Ignatova gives advice on Split Strategies, 25 July 2016 (YouTube link)
“Hello, this is Dr. Ruja Ignatova and today I would like to speak to you a bit about strategy. What is the right thing to do, should I put my tokens into mining, should I wait for the splits, or should I wait for the coin doubling on the first of October. ”
2m52s:“So if I may give somebody an advice, put your package on auto-mining. And we all know which packages are on auto-mining, it is the Premium Trader and the packages above.”
4m32s: “I would say the best strategy for everybody who has less than four splits to go should be, submit before the first of October the tokens into mining, profit from the coin doubling and from the low mining difficulty. However, also I believe strongly if you want to maximize your coins and your tokens, try to get yourself on an auto-mining package. It is simply the best thing because you double the coins and you continue splitting.”

This has nothing to do with the sale of educational packages, it is patently obvious that this is investment advice.

She clearly gives her advice on split and token use strategy. How can this be an investment advice?
It is clear what do you need to buy to obtain those tokens. She only explains what she would do with all those free tokens. Why is that bad?
It would be bad not to say anything about it and leave people in the dark. She obviously wants users who believe in Onecoin to put tokens to the best use possible.

Contradictions between Terms & Conditions and other documents
The OneLife Terms & Conditions state this:

For the packages, Infinity, Premium Trader, Tycoon Trader, Executive Trader, Pro Trader, Trader and Starter the content is educational material. The promotional tokens generated give access to the mining pools but not guarantee that and how many coins will be received. The total number of coins mined can be subject to change according to the Company’s strategy. Clients are not entitled to sell or buy coins on the internal exchange. Orders are executed based on demand and supply.
Supreme Package: The Supreme Package will also guarantee priority trading rights in the internal practice trading platform.

There is a contradiction in this sentence: "Clients are not entitled to sell or buy coins on the internal exchange"
Maybe this "not" is a mistake but the sentence is unclear. Either way, the internal exchange was just a practice test, it does not exist anymore and this is not so important.

OneLife Newsletter, 6 March 2017
During a couple of weeks the special Power Pack was promoted.

“It gives you a total of 531 818 Promotional Tokens, 6/7 Splits (depending on your choice of Infinity Package), 48 750 BVs and access to all 7 levels of OneAcademy!
This is a combination of three packages: Tycoon+, Premium and Infinity. The OneLife Terms & Conditions state that the content for these packages is educational material.

With this in mind it is nonsensical to combine the Infinity Package, which on its own contains all 7 levels of OneAcademy, with a package which offers levels 1 till 6 (Premium) and an package which offers Levels 1 till 5 (Tycoon+).

It is patently obvious that this is just a trick to let members pay “double” for the educational material to get more Tokens and more OneCoins.

This is again the point of view where you seem to understand that Onelife is only about Education. No, The only product that is sold is education. It matters to educate people. But Onecoin is the reason why people buy education in the first place and there is nothing wrong or illegal with that.
If you think there is, you will pass.

Compliance Rules

A recent document with title Compliance rules in the onelife.eu backoffice
contains the following text on page 30:

- We are selling educational packages and give the MAs an opportunity to apply the knowledge about the cryptocurrency into practice by providing them some promotional tokens which give access to the mining pools but not guarantee that and how many coins will be received.
- Tokens provided when activate the particular package are promotional ones and give the opportunity to IMAs to apply their knowledge about cryptocurrencies they have acquired from our online education into practice.
- Remember: no one buys OneCoins or tokens

Ok, here is what you guys miss to refer to when relaying those arrest and investigation news yet now it is also bad. Make up your mind.
This is the company teaching IMAs how to promote what they sell. They sell education, not tokens or onecoins. No guarantees must be made.
This way, buyer will exactly know what he will pay and he will be aware of Onecoin risks or possibilities.

CONCLUSION:
Seems like most of the points in your text is made by a mind set that thinks Onelife only promotes education and it is unclear to you that it is ok for people to actually buy several of the same education packs just to have more onecoins. If people want to do it, they can do it.
It is only important for them to be properly informed about what they are paying for and what are the risks, meaning no guaranties must be made, no promises about any profit from onecoin. Predictions and being optimistic are natural things for people who promote project but seems like not for haters

Although currently there is no real OneCoin market, i.e. no exchange where you can buy and sell OneCoins, there is a OneCoin “price” which is published in the onelife.eu backoffice. The price is also used on the Dealshaker.com platform, where OneCoin really can have some value (if you can find a reliable merchant).

Onecoin market cap is just one more of haters inventions. Where did you see the company advertise its market cap?
You probably saw some Onelife IMA leaders multiplying number of blocks with 50000 OC as it is known that every minute block rewards 50k OC.
How can we all state that this is real market cap? How do we know that all those coins are owned by users? We don't know if there are enough tokens submitted to collect all the 50000 OC per minute. I would say those mined coins go to the company's main pool and when tokens were submitted coins are sent to receivers wallet. So we are not actually sure how high Onecoin market cap is. We will know when xcoinx starts how many onecoin are on market.
Until then, stop disgracing yourselves with your graph inventions.. More about Onecoin "market cap" can be read on this topic.

Onecoin started from zero and demand was what drove mathematics behind Onecoin price. Problem actually started when they launched new blockchain and premined all existing coins in genesis block also doubled it without a price change.
I personally can not explain how this was possible because I do not understand math behind it. It is very easy to say that value is fake and determined by the company but it is not credible to say that and forget that value so far was made by pure demand.
But later on, we see much slower value incline because much more coins is mined then on old blockchain.

You will also say that new blockchain made 5700% inflation moving cap to 120Billion Onecoins and say that should dilute the value of OC.
But you forget that value is not calculated the same as coinmarketcap.com and value is only calculated for mined Onecoins, not those that are yet to be mined, so it was nowhere near 5700% increase, they were actually only doubled and now they mine much more but also price does not go up every month like it used to on old blockchain, now it goes up barely every 4 months. This can also be seen in Ripple that has 100Billion tokens but only around 40B are on the market so their market cap is lower than it could be so some people say Ripple price is fake cause it would be lower if all tokens were in the market. Maybe, but, guess what, they are not yet all on market so price is what it is. The same applies to Onecoin price. 120B OC possible does not matter. Only those mined and delivered in exchange to Onetokens matter.

We can see in this topic that Bitcoin price is just a speculative bubble, demand is mostly made by trading worthless altcoins into bitcoin and only some part is traded to cash. But hell, if people and merchants are willing to pay $2000+ for 1BTC it is credible right?
The same applies to dealsheker. If merchants accept this value of Onecoin, it is credible to them. The fact that OC can not be traded publicly only means its value is INTERNAL. We will speak about Onecoin market cap once it hits public trading. If it falls, it will fall, but it might rise too.

Bullshit Number 2: Most ridiculous Transactions in Block #22431: same OneCoins are spent 70 times
We checked a large number of Blocks and Transactions to determine if we could find inconsistencies, like “double spends” i.e. unspent Transaction OUTPUTs which are used as INPUTs in later Transactions more than once, this would make the Blockchain illegal.
We found no less than 3,734 Block where the Output Total Amount in OneCoins was greater than the total number of OneCoins in circulation (“mined”) at the moment the Block was created.
The Block with the largest OutPut Total is Block #22431 (login required) with 129,228,309,954.52314758 ONE, so more than 129 billion ONE.

First of all, if double spends would make blockchain illegal, seems like Bitcoin blockchain is illegal then?

Bullshit Number 3: KYC documents recorded in the Blockchain prevent prevent “money laundry” and “bad things”
A very important chapter in the Ponzi System Handbook is the introduction of KYC / Know Your Customer procedures (wiki link). These procedures are rarely in place from the start of a new project (it would frighten a lot of potential investors) and submitting documents is rarely a requirement for a customer or member to buy new products. On the other hand, for organizers of Ponzi systems it is an excellent means to stall payments and even to close accounts of customers who are not able to fulfil the conditions.

You guys seem to be ponzi experts to know that KYC is important in ponzi systems to stall payments?
I have posted this question to couple of haters but they always fail to answer to me:
"I already said all we need to do is take a look what ponzi actually is and compare Onecoin and Onelife system to it. It is here.
PLEASE write in short which part of Onecoin shows you that company needs new money to be able to pay old people?"
If you clasify Onecoin as ponzi than you surely don't know what ponzi is or you don't know how Onecoin operates. Or you know but you just don't care Take a pick.

But let me answer. KYC is not intended to STOP or PREVENT bad things automatically. It is intended to provide a track of money flow, and in Onecoin's case, also coin flow.
So you say Onecoin uses KYC to stall payments? Then how about if I use Kraken.com and I receive some Bitcoins and I sell them. How do I withdraw the money? I need to be Tier2 or Tier3 verified meaning I need to submit my ID and proof of address (basically KYC). It is needed because of regulatory rules from the governments. Onecoin is in compliance to that for cash but also is capable to KYC coins. Their intention of implementing KYC is to obey regulation that is needed if they want to serve mass market. Something that decentralized CC will never do.
But hell, you haters will find a dark side to everything

For example this:

Assuming that buyer and seller have got in contact already (the arms traffic is a very small world), paying weapons via Dealshaker is very easy:

1) Buyer and seller create a fake account from small third world countries where the regulations for identity cards and passports are vague.
2) KYC documents (passport, id card, energy bill for proof of address) must be uploaded in the onelife.eu backoffice in electronic form. Google “identity card” and you get hundreds of examples. These documents can be falsified very easily. For the small OneLife Support team in Sofia
Bulgaria it is impossible to distinguish all types of documents of 190 countries where OneCoin/OneLife is active.
3) The seller creates an offer on the dealshaker.com platform, with only 1 Coupon Available and a clear warning in the Description that buyers MUST contact the seller before they buy the deal, to prevent others from responding. Deal price is 100% in OneCoins.
4) The seller sends the hyperlink of the deal to the buyer or gives him a phone call.
5) The buyer buys the deal and the OneCoins are transferred to the account of the seller. Nobody except these two parties will ever know what really happened.

I mean seriously? This system can be applied to every exchange or payment gateway. Paypal or others. you submit falsified documents and most of them will pass support inspection. The point of bragging about blockchain KYC is not about stopping bad things. Anyone can do anything if he wants to risk. Point is that KYC is needed for regulations and Onecoin is the only cryptocurrency that will store KYC within the blockchain.
What we can currently see when we click on KYC transaction does not mean anything cause we don't know how it works. Just use your brain, why would they even show it so empty if it was bogus

Bullshit Number 4: What is an OFC? Answer: it’s smoke and mirrors

No need to quote anything from this part of the article but write an explanation.
Haters and dishonest skeptics who are not interested in the truth will mock and twist everything.
Just like in the above paragraph where they worked so hard to think of way how bad deals can be pulled with falsified documents in dealshaker, they will also twist OFCs.

My understanding of OFCs are following:
Company did somehow come up with ratio 1ONE->100OFC currently. OFC are only a future certificate that will be a proof for you that you will own some stocks once the company is listed on a stock exchange. When the bank decides about Onecoin company value, it will determine number of shares to be issued and their value. Only then we will know the ratio OFC - stock. Since it is a future certificate and since no one can see into the future OFC ToS need to be strict to totally protect the company from unlikely events that are off their control. One of the main probable uncontroled problems is slow birocracy of obtaining certain papers or licenses in certain countries. It is not easy with the global company.
So, if you think OFCs are smoke and mirror, simply do not trade your Onecoins to OFCs.

Lie Number 5: Most ridiculous Dealshaker offer
There is so much rubbish offered on the Dealshaker platform that this topic deserves a dedicated page, but because of the consequences and publicity we found a clear “winner”. This deal was available from 25 March 2017, it was sold out in a couple of hours (50 coupons).

Again, seriously? Are you really going to cumb dealshaker for the deals that you think are crap. And what does that prove to you?
How is that a lie came from the company? Did alibaba, ebay, amazon have all clean and good deals in their beginings?
You hopped to your own stomach with this part 5 because you described obvious fraud deal from some fraud merchant who took coins and later asked cash when someone tries to redeem a coupon. And then you clearly showed how the company will be dedicated in fighting fraud merchants.
What is there a lie exactly? I see only dedication from the company to make dealshaker quality advertisement platform as a part of Onecoin usability.

I am aware haters will twist and hate anything, focus on bad deals but dismiss good deals. I will post just some of deals that were bought and DELIVERED by people around me.

Here is a guy from region who bought boat motor on dealshaker with Onecoins:

Here is the same guy buying a buggy for Onecoins:

You all know Nikola Korbar, well he just finished his summer vacation in Monteneggro, double board payed 100% with Onecoins:

Also, from today, Dusan Torbica went on the same vacation. And more and more will come. But the real deal will be when Onecoin will be publicly traded for Fiat.

What do those merchants see in accepting Onecoins you ask your selves? Well they see pretty good opportunity and have faith in Onecoin and they certainly see good advertisement on dealshaker so everyone puts deals that they can afford cause Onecoin can not be traded yet.

Remember how Tim Tayshun said Onecoin will never have usability? Well, no wonder dealsheker is demonized so much

In september, some people should get some new cars delivered from Poland. Cars were paid 30% cash and 70% Onecoin. Cars were not in stock, people wait them to be produced and delivered. Contracts were being made upon paying cash. This time I personally know people who went to Poland to sign a contract.
I will make a topic about that whatever happens.

The developers of the OneCoin Simulator software applied themselves diligently to their task to make a Blockchain viewer which looked credible. They decided to copy 90% of the components of the Bitcoin explorer on blockchain.info.

This is a screenshot of a recent Bitcoin Block which you can view via hyperlink blockchain.info Block #472963
All elements which have been used on the OneCoin Blockchain Simulator screens (currently or in the past) are marked by a blue rectangular.

Compare this with the screenshots of a recent OneCoin Block. 100% of the elements are copied from blockchain.info (and other Bitcoin explorers).

So, kids here cry how Onecoin stole all elements from Bitcoins blockchain explorer? Srsly?
Let's see, you people say how Onecoin does not have cryptocurrency properties:
Time stamps, hashes, txIDs etc. When they decided to implement blockchain viewer and put those elements there now you say they are copying blockchain.info?
If you take a look of Etherium and Litecoin (for example) explorers you will realize they kinda also have the same elements plus some of their own:

So you say if Bitcoin has such elements it is their licensed property and Onecoin must not use them?
You say blockchain.info have a patent on rectangular table layout to populate cryptocurrency elements?

Come one Onecoin blockchain viewer and blockchain.info do not even have the same layout not to mention how more modern Onecoin BC Viewer looks. It is kinda normal that they share the same elements since both are cryptocurrencies

A. Executive Summary
1. The auditor explicitly excluded very important subjects from the scope of the audit, for instance:
- the consistency between the OneCoin End Balance of Blockchain Version 1 and the Start Balance of Blockchain Version 2
- the consistency of the audited blockchain data with the information and data visible on the front-end websites, onelife.eu among others.
NB: we found that the block height numbers (block sequence numbers) mentioned in the Audit Reports, match with the Block height numbers which are visible on the Blockchain browser screens.

Well, it is very well known that haters tend to push their opinions on what is important and what is not, and they are so sure that they are right.
Both points are totally invalid and are not subject of the contract between auditor and Onecoin. Their role is to audit current blockchain, and they are doing it."Our engagement as stated in the contract with One Network Services Ltd. is to perform audit of the OneCoin block chain in order to:
1) assess the consistency of the block chain and
2) verify that there are no transactions not included in the block chain"
Why is it important to mention end balance of BC1 and compare it to start balance of BC2 when they also audited BC1 and they know everything was fine. You seem to refer that it is important to check if the company actually knew how many coins were in the old blockchain? Nonsense.

They stated it on the audit you posted that they will not deal with old blockchain."As of 01 October 2016 a completely new block chain is used. This block chain (in effective use after 01 October 2016) is not related by any means to the old one (in use before 01 October 2016) and have no information for any transactions that have occurred before 01 October 2016. No direct link between the two block chains exists nor is subject of our tests. "

As for:

- the consistency of the audited blockchain data with the information and data visible on the front-end websites, onelife.eu among others

Since this is BLOCKCHAIN audit, the company provided them some sort of access or backup of blockchain data bases so they can audit them. The contract has no mention of front-end web sites check. Those receive coin transactions from the blockchain anyway so if blockchain itself is consistent front-end will be too. Don't tell me you think some one sit and copy/pastes transaction data from the blockchain to the front-end data bases. It would be like questioning Kraken.com front-end web site consistency with Bitcoin blockchain cause you can not see their front-end content in the blockchain explorer.
However, if auditor also compared front-end web sites data base with the blockchain would audit even better, but not doing it certainly does not make report useless. But opinions are like an ass, everyone has it.

2. The auditor accepts the data provided by One Network Services Ltd as correct and denies any responsibility concerning the data correctness.

Those data are only concerned to old blockchain end balance. Meaning they trust the company that genesis block mined correct amount of coins.
Also, they trust that company actually granted them access of the actual blockchain and not some fake stuff. At onecoin you either trust them or not. All big company started by having trust.

3. There is no mention whatsoever of checks of the consistency between the OneCoin transactions in the Blockchain on the one hand and the OneCoin Transactions in the OneCoin and Coinsafe Accounts of OneLife members on the other hand.

Did you read this one several times? This is BLOCK CHAIN audit for consistency of it. If they conclude that all transactions are in the blockchain that also counts transactions in the OneCoin and Coinsafe Accounts of OneLife members. The fact that you don't see all small transactions in blockchain viewer does not mean it can not be seen in the blockchain.

4. Despite these limitations, the auditor states in his OPINION that all transactions are recorded in the blockchain and are consistent.

The old blockchain is intentionally not in focus of new audits. They wrote it. They also made audits of the old blockchain.
The only limitation we could debate was not checking blockchain consistency with front-end web sites but that is subjected to personal preference whether it is a limitation or not. You seem to capitalize "OPINION" yet your web site is full of OPINIONS

Our opinion on the Audit Reports and the auditor:
a. All Audit Reports are worthless.
b. By explicitly limiting the scope of the audit the auditor could produce his reports without lying.
c. The audit firm S Systems Ltd as well as the auditor have zero credibility (we don’t know if this “Atanas Lazarov” really exists, as there is no proof that he has ever shown his face in public on any OneCoin/OneLife event).

No need to respond to every point instead I will just write that this is only your opinion that has zero credibility and link to the truth.
At least Atanas Lazarov name is shown, he is not anonymous so he is more credible than you. If someone thinks the same as you, he can pass the opportunity and go to some open source project.

After the launch of the “new and greatly enhanced blockchain” (according to OneCoin news that is) on 1 October 2016 it took more than six months until new Audit Reports were published.

Exactly. I asked them that my self. They responded that new blockchain was very different and audit method needed to be severely changed and with high volume of work needed to be performed in the ecosystem on regular basis, reports were delayed.

If those audits were so worthless, fake and if auditor only wrote based on what the company tells them why would there be any delay.
It is clear that some serious work is being done here. If audit reports were just mere copies they would be easily produced without any delay. Even at the time of writing this (July 2017) the last report in back office was from the March 2017. Seems like Dealshaker transactions take some time.

Report fragment – Part 1
“Our engagement as stated in the contract with One Network Services Ltd. is to perform audit of the OneCoin block chain in order to:
1) assess the consistency of the block chain and
2) verify that there are no transactions not included in the block chain.”

Our opinion – Part 1
Sub 1): Our own investigations reveal that the OneCoin “Blockchain” is internally consistent, by which we mean:
- There is a continuous chain of Blocks, connected by “next” and “previous” hyperlinks, which can be browsed through from the very first “genesis block” with Block height #0 until the most recently created Block.
- Each block contains 1 and only 1 transaction with 50,000 newly “mined” OneCoins (the mining process is fake though).
- All input amounts of Transactions can be traced back to an output amount of (an) earlier transaction(s). The original source of all OneCoins, if you follow the trail to earlier Transactions, always is a 50000 ONE mining transaction or the genesis block.
- We never found output amounts which are used more than once as input amounts in later Transactions. In general cryptocurrency terms: there are no “double spends”.

Thanks

The only “issue” is: the Transactions in the Blockchain have no connection whatsoever with the OneCoin transactions in the OneCoin and Coinsafe Accounts of OneLife members. In other words: all Transactions in the Blockchain are generated by blockchain simulation software and are fake.
Sub 2): in our opinion this a nonsensical statement.

This is based on ignorance. You assume blockchain viewer needs to show all transactions and you are confused cause you are unable to see any transaction you make appear in blockchain viewer and you conclude that is just some simulation software.
It is funny why you think that shows all the transactions when an official statement is that blockchain viewer intentionally does not show all the transactions. You can clearly see those apparent transactions look like a bulk of smaller transactions cause they have a larger number of coins. No one can verdict that because we don't have access to the software.

Report fragment – Part 2
“We have performed automated tests on the block chain and transactions databases provided to us by One Network Services Ltd. as of block with height 42 801 (forty-two thousand eight hundred and one).”
Our opinion – Part 2
The Block with height 42801 which is visible in the Blockchain viewer has Date/Timestamp 01/10/2016 23:59:58 so this is indeed the last block created in October 2016. See direct hyperlink (login required): Block height #42801

The same goes for the block height numbers mentioned in the five Audit Reports from November 2016 till March 2017, they are always the last Transaction created in the month or on the day after. This makes it very likely that the auditor has seen the same data which are visible on the Blockchain screens.

So based on the fact that audit reports only mention the last block of audit, you assume that auditor is granted the same data as we can all see in the back office? Then why are reports sometimes delayed? Why did they not make new reports for April-June and why did Oct2016-March2017 reports come with almost 6 months delays? Cause that is nonsense and pretty stupid opinion.

This is irrefutable proof that the “mining” of the genesis block in the presence of “Dr” Ruja Ignatova during the Bangkok event was one big show. There was no “pre-mining”, all transactions for migrations of coins and “coin doubling” were already registered in the OneCoin account long before. The “pre-mined genesis block” has no connection whatsoever with member’s OneCoin and Coinsafe accounts. This sentence in the Audit Reports is nonsense:

“The transfer (migration) of the coin amounts from the old to the current block chain is by pre-mining the relevant quantities in the genesis block of the current block chain.”

Sorry to disappoint you but that was actually a live start of the new blockchain and genesis block was mined live and report is not nonsense cause indeed all coins from old blockchain times two were premined in genesis block and it was live
I totally analyzed that on this topic.

Report fragment – Part 5
“Our tests are performed on the data provided to us by One Network Services Ltd. We accept this data as correct and we hold no responsibility concerning the data correctness. Our engagement is based only on the data provided by the Client and no third party sources are used.”
Our opinion – Part 5
The One Network Services Ltd company gives the auditor access to the Block and Transaction data of the OneCoin Simulator and the auditor, without any further investigation, assumes that these data are correct. This way he can write his Audit Reports without lying, sort of smart but also obvious if you see through the patterns.

Again, out of total ignorance, you make sick and skeptic assumptions
Data provided by the company are not user name and password to onelife.eu account so they can audit the blockchain from the back office viewer. Please do not insult the company out of your ignorance. Data provided is some sort of access to the blockchain. We can not know exactly what.

Report fragment – Part 6
“We preform our tests on the data provided by One Network Services Ltd. and we perform no procedures nor express any opinion on whether the information subject of our tests (the block chain effectively in use after 01 October 2016) is consistent with the information and data visible on the front-end websites (onecoin.eu, onelife.eu or any other).”
Our opinion – Part 6
This is more evidence that the auditor does not do anything to check the consistency with the informattion in the OneCoin and Coinsafe Accounts of OneLife members.

Again, since this is BLOCKCHAIN audit, the company provided them some sort of access or backup of blockchain data bases so they can audit them. The contract has no mention of front-end web sites check. Those receive coin transactions from the blockchain anyway so if blockchain itself is consistent front-end will be too. Don't tell me you think some one sit and copy/pastes transaction data from the blockchain to the front-end data bases. It would be like questioning Kraken.com front-end web site consistency with Bitcoin blockchain cause you can not see their front-end content in the blockchain explorer.

If you audit fake blockchain data which – considered on its own – seem to be consistent and complete, the results are worthless Audit Reports

Well, fake blockchain is your fantasy, it is here and it is here to stay, it is consistent and there for audits are valid. One might not like them cause they were not performed by Lloyd but hell, if you don't like audits and don't trust the company, move on.

This is a chrological overview of bank accounts which have been used by the OneCoin / OneLife network.Info on Start Dates and End Dates is based on OneCoin/OneLife Newsletters, Facebook accounts, Internet forums and other sources.

We have checked the IBAN Account Numbers via https://www.iban.com/
NB: this is a check on format, structure and length, and on validity of the “Checksum” (two digits on position 3 and 4). This site does NOT check whether a bank account still can be used.

Well, ofcourse, all the data here is gathered from the Onlife IMAs, not the company itself.
IBAN will show red flag if the account is deleted.

It is important to notice first how Global MLM companies work. They have a central company in the country of origin, and for that country only, products are sold and money is collected to that account but only for that particular country. If MLM company spreads to other countries or even continents, that means it developed some network leaders who actually opened market in other countries and continents.
Those leaders are supposed to open a company of their own, obtaining a bank account of their own and collect money from sold products in that particular country and pay taxes to that country.

Since Onelife/Onecoin developed so fast in so short time, company used its own Bulgaria account in the start but it was not good due to high fees and too much money came in. What do you think why google, apple, facebook etc have multiple companies all around the world.

As time went by, Onelife leaders were opening their own companies to serve the whole region or even continent. But they started to over sell. Some of them registered wrong company entity for the amount money they were receiving so problems were developing.

You can see that no bank problems happened in the last 7 months and that is because no end buyer or small leader can purchase Education pack directly from the company. It is done directly from someone from the Onelife network.

Meaning, each country has at least one company owned by some Onelife leader and you buy it from them. This is totally legit MLM system and no one can go and close some company that pays taxes to its country. The previous model, where small companies owned by IMAs were overselling to the whole continent was not good and we can see it in the alleged closed bank accounts.

Here is direct link to check this bank account.
As we can see no RED FLAGS, the account is not deleted, just frozen or unused. We see that alleged END date is OCT/NOV 2015. What does this mean? What if the company breached certain thresholds and in order not to pay too much tax they reopened new company and account? What if in end 2015 they realized that they are actually succeeding globally so they stopped using this account and moved to some global method? My opinion.

NOOR Bank in Dubai - Name on Bank Account: One Coin Ltd.

Here is direct link to check this bank account.
As we can see no RED FLAGS, the account is not deleted, just frozen or unused. My guess that it is not used directly to sell Education to end users or leaders cause Onecoin LTD is only cryptocurrency part of the whole system so they did not close account, they just stopped using it to sell education to users.

Here is direct link to check this bank account.
As we can see no RED FLAGS, the account is not deleted, just frozen or unused. It is unclear whose bank account it was, was it account of some of IMA?
In my opinion, this was bank account opened by some IMA.

This bank account is certainly owned by some IMA, not the company. No IBAN so I can not check. But I can say for a fact that Singapore was a bank that stood those attacks for some time but at the end it is known that the attackers got to the government level cause the bank did not respond to those money laundering reports. That bank account was frozen and the company moved on on the, current better model.

LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC (U.K.)

Here is direct link to check this bank account.
As we can see no RED FLAGS, the account is not deleted, just frozen or unused. This one is owned by International Marketing Strategies Limited, clearly an IMA.
We know that in the UK, IMAs use SuperCapital financial services platform that has all required licenses, unlike IMS in Germany. This is how smart IMAs work, not like others who open their own money transmittance company without a license.

Again no IBAN and can not check. When we see it is IMS, we can know that it is not the Onecoin company account. It is Onelife IMA account that is not used anymore. But since its alleged END date is 14 Nov 2016 it is certainly a victim of that "layer attack" that took place in OCT/NOV 2016.

United Overseas Bank Ltd in Singapore - Name on Bank Account: International Marketing Services Pte. Ltd.

This bank account is certainly owned by some IMA, not the company. No IBAN so I can not check. But I can say for a fact that Singapore was a bank that stood those attacks for some time but at the end it is known that the attackers got to the government level cause the bank did not respond to those money laundering reports. That bank account was frozen and the company moved on on the, current better model.

Here is direct link to check this bank account.
As we can see no RED FLAGS, the account is not deleted, just frozen or unused, it might be only frozen because the very well known case in Germany that I wrote about here

Here is direct link to check this bank account.
As we can see no RED FLAGS, the account is not deleted, just frozen or unused, it might be only frozen because the very well known case in Germany that I wrote about here

Here is direct link to check this bank account.
As we can see no RED FLAGS, the account is not deleted, just frozen or unused. I remember this account. It was blocked the very next day. Do you know why? 15 million euro came in the very first day. Seems like Onelife IMA who opened that did not properly register his company and account.

This bank account is certainly owned by some IMA, not the company. No Iban to check and I have no clue about this one. This is Foshan Everbright Import & Export Company Limited. Clearly owned by some IMA. But since its alleged END date is 19, OCT 2016 it is certainly a victim of that "layer attack" that took place in OCT/NOV 2016.

Here is direct link to check this bank account.
As we can see no RED FLAGS, the account is not deleted, just frozen or unused. This is also owned by some IMA. But since its alleged END date is 7 Nov 2016 it is certainly a victim of that "layer attack" that took place in OCT/NOV 2016.

Here is direct link to check this bank account.
As we can see no RED FLAGS, the account is not deleted, just frozen or unused. This is also owned by some IMA cause I know for a fact that many EU leaders use Emirates to open a company there cause our region uses one such company for larger packages owned by one of the leaders from top of businessforhome rankings. He never had his account closed cause he properly opened and registered a company, not like some others. Also, he did not over sell. And I am sure he knows where he needs to send the money on the company main account.

INBURSA, Mexico - Name on Bank Account: Bramex Easy, SA DE CV

Bramex Easy, seriously? Just another IMA who over sold probably so it was frozen, it that is true at all.

UniCredit BULBANK, Bulgaria- Name on Bank Account: One World Foundation

This is or was the account of One World Foundation, a charity organization. Why would anyone close this account Maybe they still use it or they moved to some other solution of they are sending too much money from donations. We can not know.

Onecoin Pre-Paid Mastercard Merchant Processor – The issuing merchant is identified as Zala-Group LTD, a “client” of North International Bank (Note: The card was suspended after the Director of Zala-Group Ltd., Martin Henry Beckett, was convicted in being part of a 24 million EURO drug smuggling operation in March 2016)

So what he smuggled drugs for Onecoin ? I have another info. Again someone had reported money laundering via those Master Cards and the main company froze them to investigate. Seeing how easy this is, Ruja stopped using those cards. Probably until the company is self-evident or public.

First the story told was OneCoin was too big for the bank to handle their account.

First of all, it was not the story of Onecoin company, it was the story of NETWORKERS who were responsible for all these companies.
We know for a fact that some people opened company types with low tax rates but were over selling so they ran into trouble. Nothing to do with the company. In my country, you can open certain company type with like 2% tax rate but if you receive more than 60000 euro per year or who knows maybe there are daily limits too, you go red in the bank and need to pay like 50% for taxes.
My company type that I own does not have a limit though but the tax is 15% fixed.

When it was disclosed that the bank accounts in question were with a top 5 bank in their respective country, the story then changed to the banks were afraid of the competition from OneCoin/OneLife.

No this was a stupid argument from certain IMAs and again you link IMAs independent action from the company's official info.

Now they were closed by nothing but an orchestrated attack on the banks to sabotage Onecoin. Now to believe this cock and bull story, you have to believe that OneCoin/OneLife would NOT SUE the pants off these banks for closing the bank accounts of a perfectly legal company. I mean OneLife/OneCoin is a real perfectly legal company. OneCoin/OneLife would own each and every one of these banks if this cock and bull story was true; and you know it.

It was known for a fact that in November and maybe December, some banks were getting attacked by lawyers with reports of money laundering, in some countries they even got to the government level. The Onecoin company CAN NOT SUE anyone for this cause those were not IT's accounts, those were accounts owned by IMAs. No time for suites cause time is short and this is a fast growing company so we go on with the better model now. did you hear any bank problem recently? Maybe if some IMA makes a mistake but what does that have to do with the company.

My favorite was Banca Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena that lasted less than 24 hours when they discovered that Educamax Services SRL was really OneCoin/OneLife not Educamax Services SRL. It's not nice to lie to a bank about the nature of your business on your bank application. They close your bank account when you do. You know like all the banks did listed above.

Correct, and that is what I also said in this post. But that is not company's fault, all those accounts were owned by IMAs.
I know and I laugh also on this Italy case. knowing what kind of mess Italian leaders had made by falsely promoting Onecoin, it is not strange that they could not open a proper bank account and properly register a company that needs to receive like 15 million euro per day

You really should contact these banks to find out what really happened. But then that would destroy the "story" as to why they were closed. But then it would be a waste of time as you still wouldn't believe it even when it came straight from the horses mouth.

No bank will disclose such information about their clients cause that would be a breach of the user agreement. You use that kind of arbitrary wording method to confuse ignorant scared people. Not gonna work on me

The range of virtual currencies available on the Internet is constantly increasing, with terms like “digital currency”, “alternative currency”, “crypto currency” or similar constructions being used in combination with the terms for money or currencies. The FMA explicitly advises that such offerings are currently not subject to any form of regulation, and in particular are not subject to supervision by the FMA. The FMA therefore warns consumers to exercise the utmost caution in relation to virtual currencies.

Basically, we see just a warning that virtual currencies are not regulated by FMA and all participants should understand there is a risk.

The models and products are designed in such a way that they are not subject to license obligations, and therefore consequently are not supervised.

Such models and products, for example, involve the purchasing or investing in software or hardware, with which virtual money can be created, or which can be used to trade in virtual money, with particularly high returns

Here they describe a system familiar to Bitcoin and other Altcoins.

Other examples involve virtual currencies, where in order to ensure their use to gain high returns information or training materials must first of all be purchased. Many such schemes are based on similar “Multilevel Marketing Plans” (MMPs) as those used by network marketing programs

The causes for these risks were also investigated by the EBA. These include for instance that a virtual currency scheme can be created -and its function subsequently changed- by anyone, and in the case of decentralized schemes, such as Bitcoins, by anyone with a sufficient share of computational power, and anonymously so.

Again mention of Bitcoin, no mention of Onecoin.

Then, at the end of FMA warning, they finally mention Onecoin probably to also refer to MLM model risks.
But they put three links, one is Belgian warning that will be analyzed later and UK warning that seems to be deleted.

Onecoin is called the new virtual money machine, which is similar to Bitcoin. The Chamber of Labor warns against believing promises of quick money.

Sure, anyone must not believe anyone who promises them quick money. Onecoin especially, cause it is not short term project, it is long term project.

At Bitcoin, something like a market has actually established itself, with supply, demand and a strongly fluctuating exchange rate to real currencies. Whether Onecoin is also in this direction, is doubtful. A free trade has so far not been established despite allegedly great course development, and in the network are piling up against a fraud.

Here it is clear that this article was written by a cleric who also thinks Onecoin might be a scam only because it is not publicly traded. But Onecoin is not a short term project and public trading too soon is what tends to make quick profit or loss for people with decentralized cryptocurrencies. Anyone participating ICOs is in because of possible fast profit that will bring public trading and speculating bubbling. Onecoin does not want to go up/down too fast so that is why they are building user base and merchants first and will be traded to fiat later. But it is ok to warn people not to rush out into Onecoin with too much money and not to believe if anyone is promising them profit.

By publication in the official gazette “Amtsblatt zur Wiener Zeitung” of 12 July 2017, the FMA hereby informs, that

OneCoin Ltd.
is not entitled to carry out banking transactions in Austria that require a licence. The provider is therefore not permitted to conduct the issuance and administration of payment instruments such as credit cards, banker’s drafts and traveller’s cheques on a commercial basis, with no limitation applicable to the term of crediting in the case of credit cards (Article 1 para. 1 no. 6 BWG).

What? Onecoin is forbidden to issue credit cards, banker's drafts or traveler's cheques? Since when does Onecoin issue cards and cheques?
Onecoin does not sell anything, Onelife sells education packs. But this might be linked to Germany Bafin case so probably Austria will demand a financial license too. It is twisted to call this prohibition without a focus on demand for a license, not prohibition because something illegal is undergoing.

The Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) warns the public that neither OneCoin nor the persons promoting OneCoin have been recognized or authorized by the FSMA. The FSMA once again warns the public of the risks associated with virtual currencies.

As all warnings, authority warns people that Onecoin is not regulated or recognized by the authority and to proceed with caution. (do not fall to promising of fast profit)

Hence the claims made public by Mr Laurent Louis’ on his Facebook page, namely, that the FSMA had stated that it “n’avait rien trouvé à redire sur le OneCoin” (unofficial English translation, “ that it had nothing to say about OneCoin”) and that “pour la FSMA, le OneCoin ne pose aucun problème et n’est nullement illégal ni une arnaque” (unofficial English translation, “for the FSMA, OneCoin does not pose any problems and is neither illegal nor a fraud”) are false and misleading. These claims suggest or imply that the operations in OneCoin are carried out under conditions laid down by the laws and regulations which the FSMA enforces, whereas in fact these laws and regulations do not apply to such operations.

Here they say that some person promoting Onecoin wrote on his Facebook page that Onecoin does everything according to FSMA regulations but that was misleading meaning FSMA does not have a law that applies to what Onecoin is doing. Later on they reminded people of the risk with digital currencies in common.

The NBB and the FSMA are monitoring developments concerning virtual currency units, such as Bitcoin and Litecoin.
They warn against the risks of virtual money. They point out that virtual currencies are not legal tender and are not a form of electronic money. There is no financial supervision or oversight on virtual money. For that reason, and because these products are risky, they advise taking extra care with them.

This clearly shows that FSMA puts Onecoin in the same risk category as Bitcoin. Risky, be careful you might lose money. If you do, we do not give you any insurance.

It has come to the notice of the International Financial Services Commission of Belize (IFSC) that an entity calling itself ‘One Life Network Limited’, an International Business Company registered in Belize, is conducting trading without first obtaining the required licence from the IFSC.

Since when does Onelife network conduct trading? They promote and sell a product, not trading. This article was issued 29 May 2017 but less than 24h later there is news about it on behindMLM blog that has made almost 180 articles about Onecoin. And they call people who defend Onecoin sheep.

Currently, OneCoin or other virtual currencies are not recognized and are not considered financial instruments under the MFIA and the requirements of the MFIA are not applied to them.
Potential investors and consumers should note that investment in such crypto currencies which already exceed 400 different types is associated with a high risk

Although article title says Onecoin, it is clear that this is warning for all virtual currencies and they say there are more than 400 of them.This is also a clear warning for people that if they lose money here MFIA will not be their insurance. It is good that Bulgaria government recognizes Onecoin as digital currency like the others.

Go on to Colombia:
Link to this warning article does not work anymore, it is deleted. Also, no search terms are found for onecoin or onelife.
As we can see that warning was naturally to warn people not to rush they also said Onecoin was not recognized as multi level in Colombia.
This being deleted can mean that Onecoin had been clarified in Colombia. We can believe in that because of this article.

The firm, 100% legal in Ecuador and Colombia, makes clear that the accusations against One Life and One Coin are false, according to official statement.
Last week, in Publimetro Colombia, information was published with the headline: 'Two pyramids of Bitcoin that worked in Colombia fell'
Before that, Metro Ecuador received a statement in which a clarification is requested from the company One Life.
The firm, 100% legal in Ecuador and Colombia, clarifies that the accusations against One Life and One Coin are false. As mentioned in that statement, One Life is a company focused on the distribution of packages of financial education, with more than 200 employees and with a presence in Ecuador, Colombia and other countries.

Go on to Croatia:Here is an original article.
Here is nothing new but copy/paste from other countries. We see that central bank of Croatia said that Onecoin is not recognized by the bank and warns people to be cautious cause if they lose money bank is not the insurance. They also have an article explaining the digitl currencies and mention Bitcoin, on this article.

Decentralised systems - no monitoring, control and support is provided from a single server. Such systems have been developed for, for example, "virtual" currencies, the most prominent of which is BitCoinWarning to virtual currency users.

But Croatia warning has a little bit of history behind it. Luckily Croatia is my neighbor brother country and I happened to know what was going on here.
Croatia has an association of women entrepreneurs and they organized a summit for Eastern Europe that was scheduled for 08.March 2017. We see that the warning was issued on 07.March 2017. so one day before this. Among many sponsors, the main sponsor was Onecoin since its founder is also woman entrepreneur from East Europe. Here is a link to that event. Since political situation in the Balkan countries is unstable, media ownership is divided and there is a slander to ruling and opposing parties. Since the president of Croatia allowed all this, naturally there was some tabloid trying to "expose the truth" about Onecoin and link it as bad for the president. Here is a link to that and it is written the next day after the event. Of course, they only translated Onecoin critiques opinions about Onecoin and said that was the truth.
The same day, the organizer replied to all this by this article.

Title wrote:And when there is no room for affair, some media will be happy to make it

Our law firm has fully reviewed cooperation agreements before any signing, and also states that it is a company whose cryptovalue has no coverage that appeared in the media.
At that time, OneCoin did not have any verdicts for all media inscriptions, as it is now, and most of the process that is being charged. They were rightly asked why we believe in allegations that were not before the tribunal or those who have been blamed for guilty have ever been legally declared guilty. For those who want to hold the rights and legal postulates, enough.

Well said. Serious people do not believe bloggers, tabloids, and slanders. But legal verdicts. This Croatia warning was just a political case. I wonder if that is the case in other countries too.

The Centrale Bank van Curaçao en Sint Maarten (CBCS) warns consumers to be careful of
dealing with virtual currencies. CBCS cautions consumers on a series of risks deriving from
buying, holding or trading virtual currencies such as Bitcoins, One Coinor other digital value
units, also called cryptographic currencies

Again, just a simple warning for people that cryptocurrencies are risky. They first mention Bitcoin, then Onecoin. They recognized Onecoin as a cryptocurrency.

The Public Prosecutor's Office of Finland has examined the report by the National Bureau of Investigation pursuant to chapter 3, section 3 of the Pre-trial Act and found that an offense related to a crime can only reliably be assessed at the time of disclosure, which is likely to occur at the end of 2016

This is from late 2015. They basically write about the opening investigation. They understand the system but are unable see any illegal activity before the end of 2016 cause that was supposed to be the probable date that Onecoin goes public with the old blockchain. Since they realized that success is higher than they anticipated, new blockchain brought new concept and public trading will be in 2018 cause in order to be stable, more users and merchants need to join. According to the company. So this investigation is penging cause there is no proof of illegal doings.

The Central Bureau of Investigation calls for particular caution in the procurement of such services as they have difficult to predict economic and criminal risks. According to KRP's view, the promises of over-performance expectations are not realistic.
If the pertinent person suspects that he or she has been subjected to the offense, there is no obstacle for him to make an inquiry to the police.

Sure, no big profits need to be promised, and anyone that thinks is being scammed is free to call in. I am not aware that there were people calling in because then they would just prove to be greedy and stupid cause they believed someone who promised them fast big profit.

Germany:
The case in Germany has nothing to do with Onecoin being banned as they state. Onecoin was recognized as a financial instrument and needs a financial license from the Bafin. You can read deeply about Germany case here.

Italy:
Italy case is a torn for Onecoin indeed because that is the first case where really bad people worked totally against Onecoin company rules and were promoting investments and promising high profits from selling Onecoins. They were banned from conducting that pyramid like scheme but Onelife company being responsible for their independent associates got a PRECAUTIONARY suspension. Maybe they will clear it, maybe not. Up to the company. You can read deeply about Italy case here.

India:
This was described very correctly in the critique web site:

“So um, as I say, we are speaking to the Indian authority, we have delivered the names of the people who have violated the firm policy. We have warned everybody in India not to do so and I have even stopped the registration process of India yesterday. Until all the Indian leaders have not done another training in compliance with the company standards I will not reopen the market.

Some bad leaders were promising high returns and even sold premade packages. They were scammers using Onecoin for its scam so they got arrested. You can read deeply here about India case.

Go on to Hungary:Here is an original article
Once gain, our friends from onecoin critique department only separated text mentioning Onecoin where Bitcoin was mentioned first.

The National Bank of Hungary (NBH) again reminds those who wish to invest in the hope of a high yield that virtual payment instruments (also called cryptovalutas), which are popular on a world wide web, are not subject to supervision by any central bank or authority (the MNB does not authorize or register) So they can have extremely high risks.
In the case of Bitcoin and similar virtual devices that are available for payment, there is a lack of adequate liability, warranty and compensation rules, which would, for example, protect the interests of consumers in the event of abuse.

One more central bank warning its citizens to take care when investing in virtual currencies cause those are not regulated by a bank so if they lose money there is no insurance at the bank. We can see they also refer to Bitcoin

There are constructions similar to pyramid schemes (eg OneCoin)

If you read this post from the beginning, you might see that Austria described different models. One model being investing into hardware and software and mine digital currency, then to invest in coins, and third is multi level marketing. At least Austrians names it properly. This Hungarian cleric who wrote this article seems to be a person who sees MLM as a pyramid. I know that since I live 70 km from Hungaria and I am there a lot so I know that in Balcan and Hungaria many people associate MLM to a pyramid, not referring to illegal pyramid schemes, just that MLM structure looks as a pyramid to them (oh they did not bother to see how hierarchy structure looks in classic companies).
Onecoin critiques, of course, interpret this quoted sentence as they suit it like Hungarian bank declared Onecoin as a pyramid scheme. I hope I explained. But we can clearly see that Hungary recognized Onecoin as a cryptocurrency beside Bitcoin.

The Financial and Capital Market Commission (FCMC) warns about the services of the Internet website www.onecoin.eu and www.esmubagats.lv/, which invites to invest and join the OneCoin scheme, which, according to the FCMC, is based on the principles of the financial pyramid.

The FCMC is monitored only by licensed market participants who have received a relevant license for the attraction of deposits or investments. Only with these depositors, the customer is protected by the state - both as a consumer and as a depositor.

Not sure if there are any good leaders in Latvia but someone needs to explain to FKTK that Onecoin can not be a pyramid cause it has legal documents that it is legal MLM, also it is not an investment. Maybe mentioned website www.esmubagats.lv was promoting Onecoin as an investment. It is not functioning anymore. It is clearly some IMA personal website promoting Onecoin. Maybe in a bad way. I can not say cause it is offline. Maybe the owner is kicked out of Onelife.

Then we go to another Latvian article here. But it is only about financial pyramids. Not related to Onecoin.

The financial pyramid may take various forms, it may be difficult to recognize it at the first moment, the pyramid can hide behind various forms of business, charity, etc., but usually financial pyramids have one main characteristic: customers are promised a disproportionate amount of profit in the short term, as well as usually Participants receive an additional bonus, bonuses for attracting new members.

Onecoin does not promise any profit from Onecoin, although we all hope there will be in the future, just like any ICO out there. The rest of money is earned via legit MLM compensation plan bonuses. There are like 500 MLM companies in the world.
Critiques seem to relate this article to Onecoin because of this cause they quoted that:

The fate of any financial pyramid fate is known in advance – it ceases to exist at the end of the cash flows, that is, no longer being able to attract new participants. Those participants who have joined the pyramid last will lose their money entirely.

So if Onecoin does not find any new buyers to their education pack, will it collapse? WIll Coca Cola collapse if no one wants to buy their junk soda? Probably

Now the third and the fourth links are the same text from different websites and are referred to Onecoin. Original article is here and another is here.

The Financial and Capital Market Commission (FCMC) has repeatedly warned of its involvement in OneCoin's business plans, which, according to the FCMC, is based on the principles of the financial pyramid. Tenders are available on various websites (e.g., www.onecoin.eu) or on social sites, as well as on s

So FCMC is warning people about participating in Onecoin because it has no license in Latvia and is thus categorized as a financial pyramid.

We remind citizens that unlicensed merchants and other similar entities are not state-controlled and thus the interests of the citizens are not protected. An unlicensed commercial activity involving a call for investment or attracting deposits or other repayable funds is a criminal offense.

This is clear. Warning for people about involving with an unlicensed investment company. Except Onecoin is not an investment. But ok, maybe IMAs in Latvia promoted it like an investment. I don't know that. We see that even loud Latvia only warns people that they will not protect them if they lose money.

I need to add that Latvia also issued warning for Bitcoin and other virtual currencies. Here is that article.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today issued a warning about the risks associated with the use of a virtual currency, such as Bitcoin , in various virtual currency transactions. EBA points out that consumer rights are currently not protected, as there are no specific rules for transactions made using the virtual currency as a means of payment, thus risking the loss of money.

The Malta Financial Services Authority (“MFSA”) has become aware of the websitehttps://www.onecoin.eu/en/ and a Facebook page entitled “OneCoin Malta” which are
promoting what appears to be a virtual currency by the name of “OneCoin”
The MFSA hereby informs the public that OneCoin is not a currency issued by any Central
Bank or by any other public authority.
The MFSA is concerned about the risks that OneCoin poses to consumers and therefore
strongly advises the public and consumers of financial services to exercise extreme caution

Looks familiar? People, please note that Onecoin is not issued by our central bank so be cautious if you lose money we will not protect you. But they issued the same warning for all the other virtual currencies so one more government that recognizes Onecoin as digital currency along with others. You can see original document here.

The MFSA hereby informs the public that a virtual currency (also known as cryptocurrency) such as Bitcoin is an unregulated digital instrument used as a form of money that is not issued or guaranteed by a Central Bank or by any other authority and is not equivalent to traditional
currencies. Unlike traditional money, acceptance of payment in virtual currency depends entirely on the voluntary consent of the recipient. Furthermore, providers of services in relation to virtual currencies are currently neither regulated by law nor authorized by the MFSA

We can see they warn about Bitcoin and other digital currencies as they were not issued and regulated by the MFSA.

We can see that they also issued warning for number of Bitcoin exchanges that are registered in Malta as they are not regulated by MFSA so people are warned that MFSA will not protect them if they lose their money or coins from those exchanges.

Netherlands: is mentioned but they only relayed Belgian warning that I described above.

The attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission, (the Commission) has been drawn to radio advertisements and other modes of solicitations of the public to invest in cryptocurrencies such as Swisscoin, OneCoin, Bitcoin and such other virtual or digital currencies.
The public is hereby advised to exercise extreme caution with regard to digital (crypto currencies) as a vehicle of investments.

Standard warning to people for all cryptocurrencies as we saw in all countries. I am not sure if Onecoin critiques realize how the authorities are recognizing Onecoin as a digital or cryptocurrency beside of Bitcoin.

Go on to Pakistan:
Original link does not work. But according to critiques quote:

It has come to the notice of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) that some persons, companies or entities are offering investment in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Swisscoin, OneCoin and such other virtual or digital currencies.

We can see one more country recognizing Onecoin as cryptocurrency along with Bitcoin and making people aware of the risks cause they will not be their insurance if they lose money.

Go on to Poland:Here is an original link.
This is actually no warning. This is just a response to some Bitcoin community complain about Onecoin that made authorities to go and investigate.

The findings of the public prosecutor's office have shown that there have been no preparatory proceedings for this financial project to date. In addition, it was found that the subject matter was analyzed by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority, however, that body did not have grounds for referring to the prosecutor's office for a reasoned suspicion of committing an offense

Polish authorities did not find any problems with Onecoin system to proceed to the prosecutor.

On the other hand, on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices, the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, by decision of 16 May 2016, opened an investigation, in. To identify the entity or entities responsible for the organization of OneCoin and how it operates. This procedure is still pending.

So unfair market practices and competition department opened investigation probably about MLM part cause they deal with relations with end buyers and advertising. That one is pending. So no conviction. Just a process pending. It is more than a year old process.
In this article we can see Bitcoin community reporting Onecoin just because Onecoin is different from Bitcoin and therefore they give them selves right to decide that cryptocurrency needs to be like Bitcoin.

In connection with the influx of Bitcoin members and cryptanalysts in Poland, I would like to draw your attention to the work of the international organization focused on the OneCoin project. According to experts, because it is a centrally controlled system (ie it can be controlled by a relatively narrow group of people) and is not based on open source protocol and source code, a public, distributed database of b (b- blockchain) transactions, OneCoin is not Cryptowalut in the exact meaning of the word. At the same time, the project claims to identify cryptanalysts in order to confuse potential investors to build something that resembles a traditional financial pyramid, which is illegal in Poland.

Here we can see that Bitcoin members are reporting Onecoin as a scam just because it is closed source, centralized and not yet publicly traded.
There are also other similar projects and also they get reported and slandered. Here is a report about DasCoin too (I have no clue about it)

The Lottery Inspectorate believes that the concept of OneCoin is based on recruiting new participants to increase participants' profits. Our overall assessment of the business is that there is a reason to assume that OneCoin is a chain letter game or the like.

This was way back from January 2016. Sweden authorities said that they "believe" that Onecoin is an illegal scheme. They already closed its investigation in March 2017 and mysteriously reopened it soon after and it is being still since then. Once again, more than a year passed and they could not find anything wrong.

Information about Onecoin and other electronic information units. At a similar style
As it is inviting people to invest in an electronic data unit called Onecoin, cited.It is a digital currency that is popular all over the world.
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) would like to clarify as follows:
1. Onecoin is not money. The debt under Thai law. And currently no country.
To accept or certify that Onecoin is legal tender.
2. To hold or invest in electronic data units. The authorities have not guaranteed that.

One more country that issues warning to people that Onecoin and other digital currencies are not issued by the bank of Thailand so they do not guarantee protection if people lose it.

Bank of Uganda (BoU) wishes to notify the general public that the entity “ONE COIN DIGITAL MONEY” is not licenced by the BoU under the Financial Institutions Act, 2004 and is therefore conducting business outside the regulatory purview of the BoU. The above entity’s website address is www.onecoin.eu and it has opened up an office on the Fourth Floor, Mukwano Courts, Buganda Road, Kampala. The company is still in its formative stages but it is aggressively encouraging members to buy digital money and promising very high returns and rewards on ‘first-come-first-served’ basis.

Onecoin does not have official offices in Uganda. Those are again some IMAs that were promising profit. I think Uganda is educated lately better.
But as usual, Onecoin critiques separating only the part of the text that suits them. This actually makes them haters, not critiques. We are all already aware that some of IMAs tend to promise profit, but most of the time I think that personal optimism of coin success is mixed with promising.

Bank of Uganda warns the general public that whoever wishes to invest their hard earned savings in Cryptocurrency forms such as One-coin, Bitcoin, Ripple, Peercoin, Namecoin, Dogecoin, Litecoin, Bytecoin, Primecoin, Blackcoin or any other forms of Digital Currency is taking a risk in the financial space where there is neither investor protection nor regulatory purview

We see that Uganda authority is actually doing what most of them did. Warning people about any digital currency that bank will not be their insurance should they lose money and once again, Onecoin is recognized by a government aside of Bitcoin.

Go on to United Kingdom:The Onecoin warning article is deleted from the FCA website. Search term for onecoin and onelife does not return any results.
FCA deleted their warning for Onecoin.
The only warning I could find was when I searched "Bitcoin". European warning on virtual currencies

Consumers have been warned of the possible risks from buying, trading or holding virtual currencies such as Bitcoins by a European financial regulator.

Go on to United States:
This is actually an act from CFTC where Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were put under comodity exchange act.
This article is dated September 17. 2015. This has nothing to do with Onecoin but it is nice of critiques to put this at Onecoin warnings and prohibitions page because this way they acknowledge Onecoin as cryptocurrency.

Since cryptocurrency is put under commodity exchange act, Onecoin as a company issued a statement that they will look into it:

OneCoin examines the new developments with our legal team – if and what licenses will be needed for the company to operate and respect all rules and new regulations. We also strive to register with the SEC in the next time.
Therefore until all matters are clarified, we need to temporarily suspend new registrations from the USA. OneCoin trading will be also restricted for this time period. We also kindly ask all our affiliates to not market the concept during events and through other media.

So Onecoin company wanted to be in compliant with CFTC as a cryptocurrency and SEC for tokens during this ICO.

Despite its potential, we would like to reiterate the fact that our company is not planning to enter the US market and registrations from there are still not allowed.

Since it is known that nonUS bitcoin exchanges are not allowed to serve wallets to US customers and since SEC imposes too heavy costs for regulated tokens during ICO, seems like Onecoin company needed to let go of US market. Maybe it will be different when the company is listed on stock exchange and coin is publicly traded they can register a US based exchange for them selves too. Until then, the rest of the world is fine.

That is all that critiques could gather. Besides asking yourself, what kind of healthy critique does this kind of info gathering, we must understand that actually, they have very important role to play. Their miss info needs not to be shut down, it only needs to be responded in an objective matter.
That way, they will filter people so only open minded people join this. Leave speculators and fast profit lovers for the rest of ICOs.

CONCLUSION:As we can see, most of the warnings were served for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and putting Onecoin with them is a good thing which means governments acknowledge Onecoin as a digital currency just like Bitcoin (they don't care if Onecoin works differently, if it is centralized if it has no explorer, if it is still closed ). Those warnings are pure info to the people that digital currencies are not regulated by central bank so in case they lose any of the assets, the government will not be their insurance. Any healthy government will make such warning to distance them from stupid greedy people who sell their house cause they thought they will get rich fast.

Also, investigations were started mostly because of too aggressive overselling and promising from independent onelife members. Governments and Onecoin company forbid that too. NO investigation finished with any bad outcome for Onecoin as a company.

Some highly regulated countries ask Onecoin to obtain a financial license (Germany) and hopefully, they will grant it to them. It remains to see what will happen with Bitcoin license.